by John Ragan
|
Select A Section home public service database mgr. data access data modeler site notes |
Currently In This Section Public Service Miscellaneous Theory ( Please Scroll Down ) |
Section Pages date protocol comm. protocol theory research amateur science news |
|
This document bears legal
copyrights.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
________________________________ Possible "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" -- . -- Click for the "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon" discussion, which is a section of the "Neutron Stars" derivative.
-- . -- (*ref. : "Sky & Telescope", August 2023, pp. 8-9, "What We Can Learn From Massive Early Galaxies " abstracted from research by Michael Kolchin published in "Nature Astronomy" 13 Apr 2023 by Colin Stuart.) Kolchin (University Of Texas) found that the formation of galaxies as massive as the JWST is photographing is nearly impossible within currently held cosmology theories. Mark Vogelsberger (MIT) who was not involved in the study judged its results "very sound". An unassociated but related study reported in "Science" 13 Apr 2023 by a Hayley Williams team (University Of Minnesota) found that a galaxy 500 million years after the "Universal Inception Advent" had a star formation rate tens of times higher than galaxies 150 million years later. All of the studies using the JWST thus far support the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) better than expected. For example, the "UIM" produced a nearly homogeneous universe that was nearly "wall-to-wall" "Sub-Atomic" matter, (See the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM") , and immediately converted it to atomic matter, thereby introducing gravity. (See the "UGM"(Universal Gravity Model))
-- . -- (*ref. : "Sky & Telescope", June 2023, p. 11, "The Universe Is Too Smooth By Half" abstracted from "Physical Review D" by Camille Carlisle.)
More than 150 scientists in several disciplines have worked together to create a new analysis of the "CMB" (Cosmic Microwave Background), which delivers a predictive map of the subsequent structure of the universe. They also photographed, catalogued, and located galaxies by the "hundreds of millions", from which they constructed temporal/spatial maps of the universal structure going back 8 to 9 million years. The "CMB" prediction and the actual current galaxy clusters were compared. The findings are tentative at this time, but it appears that the universe may be too smooth. It appears that as many as half of all galaxy clusters are entirely missing from the current universe. If they are correct, or even close to correct, then their findings support the hypothesized "Aggremmass" activity on this document, which could have sucked much of the mass out of the universe in or around the latter stages of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) activity, maybe near when "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" was taking place. When reading the "Aggremmass" hypotheses, note that galaxy clusters, which the studies indicate are missing, would have been the triggers for aggremmass activity, so those clusters would then have quickly disappeared. Thus supporting the "Empirical" research. This activity is so far from reality, that, lest we lose sight of the impossible, let us reiterate that we are not addressing mere galaxies: We are talking about the multiple disappearance of entire clusters of many galaxies as predicted by this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model).
-- . -- (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Dec 2022, p. 8, "Webb Shatters Galaxy Distance Records" by Govert Schilling)
If out of context, one would be hard pressed to determine whether Mister Schilling's article, referenced above, is about preliminary findings of the Webb Telescope, or is a description of this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) on this document. That is to say that the Webb Scope findings are still supporting the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). The biggest difference between theory and findings so far is in the amount of excitement generated in the science community. The shocking differences found in objects within a few hundred million light-years of the inception's "Advent" are:
A simple coherent and succinct description of the very early universe may be found in the "Magnetogenesis" derivative, which required that description to explain how Magnetogenesis was affected. The advanced degree of matter evolution is, at least partially, explained in the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative. ( It is hard to tell from just two small photos, but matter distribution in those photos seems to exhibit inter-galactic shock waves that might have originated in the "UIM" pre-galactic activity. If those apparent waves persist, then maybe some of the "UCM" theoretical phenomena such as the "Aggremmasses" should be investigated for impact.)
-- . -- -- . -- Initial observations by the James Webb Space Telescope probe past the 13 billion year frontier. Not yet verified are reports that the observations reach to 200 million years after the inception's "Advent" event. They have not yet penetrated to the spatial and temporal volumes in which the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) operated. It appears to be the universe as it would have been a few million years after the "UIM's" "Stellar Aggregation" event. However, this logician-theorist feels that the photographed state of the universe is indicative of preceding events. So, let us consider the relative probabilities of that photographed situation having been delivered either by the descredited "Big Bang" or by the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) component of the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). So far, so good.
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov 2022, pp. 12-15, "A Deeper View" by Monica Young)
-- . -- -- . -- The physicist and history scholar, Professor Tony Rothman published a fine and accessible article in "American Scientist" about Einstein's famous equation. His paper, referenced below, seems to support the time thesis. He reports that Einstein failed to prove See additional discussion in the "Support For The Time Assessment" segment. It presents an impossibility argument against Professor Einstein's equation that arises from the "Time Assessment". (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", pp. 360-365, vol. 109, Nov-Dec 2021, "The Curse Of E = M (C^2)", by Prof. Tony Rothman.)
-- . -- -- . -- A recent discovery seems to report extreme empirical support for the "UGM"(Universal Gravity Model), which is a component of the "UCM"(Universal Construct Model).
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Oct 2021, p. 9, "Twisters In The Cosmic Web" Extracted from "Nature Astronomy" of 14 June 2021 and reported in "Sky & Telescope" by Govert Schilling) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov 2022, p. 9, "Where Did The Quasars Come From? by Monica Young)
-- . --
________________________________ -- . -- Caution:
-- . -- The "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) consists of
That physics theory, which is the major part of this document, is interspersed with supportive "Empirical" evidence such as the recently reported "Universe's Largest Gravity Sources". All of that seems to provide the entire "UCM" with empirical validation. The "UCM" derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic tries to tie it all together, but needs some cleanup. Because the theory is so intertwined, and due to its size and complexity, its author recommends that its first reading be in the sequence in which it is presented with minimal attention to cross-references. -- . -- See the "Sources Of Support" appendix.
-- . --
__________________________________________________
Click for theory document contents. Contents Of Nature Of Time
________________________________ ( Caution :
Although this has been on the internet since 2006, many have not grasped it. It is very simple. Time is a social construct that has become so ingrained in our consideration of the external that it has been actualized through cultural institutionalization. That which appears to be time is only
The fact that Man finds it so useful, universally complies with the synchronization, and uses imprisonment, ostracization, and starvation to enforce its observance adds to its reality. We have become so Proficient that we can synchronize actions on opposite sides of the planet to within a single vibration of an atom. That universal objectification and institutionalization produces a universally shared illusion of reality outside of the individual, but it remains a religious illusion despite its efficacy and ubiquity as surely as Salem's witches. Most confusingly, the Creator gave our intellects a boost beyond ordinary survival with a mechanical contrivance that, among many effects on us, universally presents an external appearance of time; i.e., celestial mechanics. Being universal, constant, and ubiquitously shared, those celestial realities pushed our primitive intellects into creating a shared perception with a consequential concept of their regularity. A revolution of the earth about its axis was noted, was given a shared name, and became a "day" of "time". The moon created a month of "time". And the sun created a "year". Even irregularities were beneficial because they stimulated us to invent ways to impose regularity upon the misbehaving celestial bodies so that they "kept good time". Their embedded cyclic nature also embedded a cyclic property in our time that competes with its linearity.
An object's movement is an object's movement; not "time".
Some theorists believe that they have found bedrock at the "Planck Level". That is because they have not realized that their time concept becomes meaningless within that context and thereby universally nullifies their concept. Having once had a physicist friend, he quit speaking after hearing this anathema because (I suppose.) the physicists have built their world around the concept of time. Theoretical physics may be unable to exist as we know it without time, so theoretical physicists must be especially adamant in this area. But they are merely reasoning in circles to support their religious beliefs. (See that meltdown begin in "Einstein's Thoughts" below. See also "Support For The Assessment Of Time"), and press (alt-left arrow) to return here. Because few people seek God's Profound wisdom, the purpose and principle of causation are poorly understood. Therefore, to support the time concept, simple minds among physicists created what they call "the arrow of time", which they offer as proof-of-concept, not realizing that their "arrow of time" is merely their misunderstanding of the great chain of causation. Waves of energy rolling through the universe demonstrate causation; not "time".
Causation requires a serial chain of events. The serial property is a necessary physical and logical property of the causation definition, and is not "time". The French have announced that the meter is the distance that light travels in 1 / 299,792,458th of a second; precisely.
Increased sophistication of horology technology enhances the concept in our minds, but the reality is that how it is measured and defined are irrelevant. Defining a picosecond as a vibration of a particular atom, or a second as the transit of a photon over one hundred and eighty six thousand miles, or an hour as a man's walk to the grocery store are meaningful only as a means of synchronizing human activities and thoughts, and a means of cognitively linking disparate natural events, and do not demonstrate a piece, chunk, or pound of "time". Although time is only a concept, it is one of the most powerful concepts created by the mind of Man. The observance of the mechanical synchronization that we call time is imminently useful to those of us in the practical world, so this is certainly not an attempt to destroy that tool; it is merely an observation of reality. Date, time, and the "CoreDate" protocol work well and that is enough in the practical world of people and systems. But that does not prove a case for "time". Neighbors can say, "Hey, we know that we're kindof ignorant, so let's talk in terms that we share, like miles per hour, so we can get on with practical matters." (See "Intractable Problems" on the "CoreDate" protocol document.) But not so for the physicist for he claims the bedrock truth of "Empiricism" and logic. Therefore, holding the physicist accountable by his claimed stature, "foul" is called here. - For example, in the physicist's world, a second is the time that passes while light travels ~186,000 miles, so light speed is ~186,000 miles / second.
That uses a famous and simple equation to demonstrate that efficacy is not proof. To say that the time concept works well in physics if we ignore the problem, regresses to the middle ages. The flat earth theory also works well for those who believe it, but those who believe that either is part of the universal description of reality encounter surprising problems in seemingly unconnected areas of reality. Is this a "tempest in a teacup" in mere reconceptualization, and therefore of no consequence ? The answer is, "Yes.", but only if the observed orbit of the sun around the earth were "merely reconceptualized", whereas its orbit around us demonstrably continues, and therefore is of no consequence. Reductio ad absurdum.
Much has changed since leyden jars and phlogiston.
Assessment :
Some Foundation Observations :
The "Universal Insanity" and "Temporal Concepts" appendices offer further discussion. ( Einstein's Thoughts :
________________________________
_____________________________ (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", pp. 360-365, vol. 109, Nov-Dec 2021, "The Curse Of E = M (C^2)", by Prof. Tony Rothman.) Professor Rothman has published another fine and accessible article in "American Scientist". His paper, referenced above and below, seems to support this time thesis. He reports that Einstein failed to prove "Einstein's famous 1905 relativity paper is valid only for low velocities, and in six further attempts he never succeeded in producing a universal derivation of E = M (C^2)." Of course, that is exactly what the above discussion predicts: That because "time" is a "Null" concept, the equation cannot be proven: In the strictest sense, nothing can be said about it as long as it contains that null value, which is time. One might even contend that this time thesis actually proves that E = M (C^2) is an invalid statement and cannot be proven. Professor Rothman is truly a gentleman, and attempts to ease the attack on Einstein's work by pointing out the subsequent weak proof that may have appeared in nuclear explosions. But as long as that equation is undefined, proof failure seems to be predicted. Yes, this logician-theorist is aware of the usage of the time concept throughout Man's affairs. Rejection of the time concept would create many problems, but this sentence is only a recognition, and does nothing to correct the problem. Furthermore, the writer contends that even scientists do not seem aware of the extent of the problem. The writer contends that the problem is Profound and perhaps is being camouflaged by panicky scientists.
(*ref. Source: "American Scientist", pp. 360-365, vol. 109, Nov Dec. 2021, "The Curse Of E = M (C^2)", by Prof. Tony Rothman.) ( Support or no support, Prof. Rothman's extensive and shared scholarship is appreciated.)
-- end --
_____________________________ (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", pp. 16-23, May 2022, "The Origins Of Time", by Sten Odenwald) "The Origins Of Ghosts. What are ghosts? Why are they so different from space? And where did they come from?" That quote is from the referenced "Astronomy" paper, The purpose of that substitution is to illuminate the subtle destruction of logic that is employed in so many popular science papers. By addressing the origins of ghosts or time, and asking what they are at the beginning of the paper, that author jumps over their non-existence and leads you in a jump into discussing aspects of their reality, which has not been demonstrated. (The same logic, to our embarrassment, is used by so many Christian preachers to support their personal fictitious theology.) That is how dark energy was treated by the science community; i.e., the manner in which "time" is treated in that "Astronomy" paper, and the way that ghosts were treated in the previous paragraph. (Extremely unfortunate and irritating because there are beautiful points of quantum mechanics presented in that paper that otherwise might have been referenced in this document.) One wonders why there were no photos of time in that paper, because photos of "Dark Matter" were published previously in that periodical. (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", pp. 16-23, May 2022, "The Origins Of Time", by Sten Odenwald)
-- end -- -- . --
________________________________ The "Nature Of Time" dissertation may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was January 1, 2006. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 20060101. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, January 1, 2006 with revisions, or 20060101 with revisions. There is no record of first publication of "Nature Of Time", but it was almost certainly sometime before the year 2007. Therefore, the above date is adopted. Its internet address is Example :
You can click here to obtain contact information.
End of The Time Concept.
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents. Contents Of The Universal Gravity Model End of the Universal Gravity Model contents.
________________________________ Under construction. Changes are, intuitively, felt likely. Concerning the nature and source of the gravity illusion. -- . -- See the "Sources Of Support" appendix.
_____________________________ The need for, and value of, math is recognized. However, the author has been math-challenged since seeing long division solved on a blackboard in the first grade for the eighth grade of a one-room country schoolhouse. Structured recursive estimation without formal specification baffled the six-year old who told himself, "I can't do that.". Regardless, no math will be presented. That is unfortunate because mathematical descriptions would allow logical analyses that might push the "UGM" (universal gravity model) into extended realms, or that might refute it. However, the fortunate result is that, being deprived of math, the author is forced to attempt a clear, logical, and easily understood presentation of the topic that Professionals might find credible, with the additional benefit of making the proposal understandable for most college graduates. ( Michael Faraday (1781-1887) was a British physicist and brilliant researcher and theorist, but he was incapable in math, so his work is known by few. However, James Clerk Maxwell is famous because he studied Faraday's research and summarized it in four famous equations, upon which Einstein based his work.) You will find that the theory of relativity is being stressed so badly by this Universal Gravity Model that the theory may need re-evaluation unless the model can be refuted. You will find that foundation elements of the "UGM" and the relativity theory are in opposition. Therefore, refutations of the "UGM" that are based on that theory may be noted as such, but cannot be seriously considered. ( if one feels compelled to rely on relativity, one may first want to review relativity's "Analysis" in the "Nature Of Time" topic.) However, this Universal Gravity Model and Newtonian physics appear to be entirely consonant. An extension of Newtonian physics math to support or refute this model would be interesting. If you can do such, it might be appropriately included in an appendix, but only if it were accompanied by clear and concise descriptive text that laymen can understand, and if it were accompanied by permission to publish it with credit to your name. ( Please conform transmissions to the contact information, or they will probably be lost in security systems.)
-- . --
________________________________
_____________________________ The methods and mechanisms for handling energy are uniform and consistent for nearly the life and breadth of the universe. ( See the "Universal Uniformity" section of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model).) Taking advantage of that to simplify the subject, the various aspects of energy are presented in a central source. This energy section is presented here only to relieve you of wondering about the energy questions by knowing that they are covered and presented separately for you. To enhance that simplicity, it is recommended that this "UGM" (universal gravity model) and the "Universal Energy" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic be digested separately. Since it is so important to so many, a section of that energy derivative is dedicated to "Gravity" energy. ( You will find that an "Energy Postulate" that supports that simplification is theorized. Albert Einstein commented in a *paper that some theorists use simplicity as a substitute for empiricism , and he applauded them, but this theorist goes to great trouble in this document to validate theory with empirical research, as discussed in that energy derivative's "Preface", lest he commit the errors of the string theorist. See also "Science Philosophy" in the appendices, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.)
-- . --
_____________________________ Note :
Postulate 1 :
( Postulate 1 Explication :
Hypothesis 1 :
( Hypothesis 1 Explication :
Hypothesis 2 :
( Hypothesis 2 Explication :
Hypothesis 3 :
( Hypothesis 3 Explication :
Hypothesis 4 :
( Hypothesis 4 Explication :
-- . --
_____________________________ Hypothesis 5 :
( Hypothesis 5 Explication :
Hypothesis 6 :
( Hypothesis 6 Explication :
Hypothesis 7 :
Hypothesis 8 :
( Hypothesis 8 Explication :
Axiom 1 :
( Axiom 1 Explication :
-- . --
_____________________________ Hypothesis 9:
( Hypothesis 9 Qualification :
( Hypothesis 9 Explication :
Hypothesis 10 :
( Hypothesis 10 Explication :
hypothesis 11 :
( hypothesis 11 Explication :
-- . --
_____________________________ Hypothesis 12 :
( Hypothesis 12 Explication :
Understanding Curvature Impact :
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- The deformation of space is addressed in various forms, the differentiation of which is significant in this discussion. The difference between deformation types that might be nearly synonymous in other contexts can be of cause, morphology, and result significance here. Spatial Deformation Types :
Warp :
Curve :
Wave :
An Extremity :
-- . --
_____________________________ The deformation of space that is expressed as the gravity illusion is not a freakish anomaly or aberration, but is a key participant and consequence of the fundamental universal construct. Investigation of the inception of the universe, as described in the following "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), included the "Matter Hypothesis". All matter that ever existed was created early in the inception process by action at the "Quantum Mechanics" level. It was not created as stars and planets, and not even as atoms. It was created as the smallest sub-atomic particles. When space began the "Great Expansion", which would form the universe, it carried energy that was triggered to raise waves in it at the "Planck Level". That process continued as space continued to appear and expand. Such quantum physics waves are known as matter wave forms, and are conceptually presented as "Solitons", so that wave function was expressed universe-wide as sub-atomic particles that were carried outward within their expanding space. (The "Hydrogen Event" describes how those sub-atomic particles would later participate in the "Universal Inception Model".) That source hypothesis appears to be theoretically valid, so the relation of mass and space is deeper than previously thought, and the apparent adhesion, or local space's reaction to local mass acceleration, becomes simplistic. (See additional discussion of the matter, space, and energy relation in the "Relation Of The Universe's Materials" segment of the "Theory Derivatives".) See corollary 3 of "Hypothesis 3", which specifies that local space pervades material objects filling atomic interstices. If the mass is addressed as a quantum physics mass wave form within the spatial medium, as postulated, then that explains spatial warpage when the mass wave form accelerates; i.e., accelerative action forces the cohesive local space around the action to move with it. That dragging movement warps local space and forces extended spatial curvature. ( However, unlike accelerative motion, extra-accelerative motion and smoothly continuous movement of the mass wave form allows local space to continually reconfigure and relax around it.) For this operation's handling of energy, see the "Gravitation" section of the "Universal Energy" derivative.
-- . --
_____________________________ The Universal Gravity Model employs sub-atomic behavior in two areas.
Postulate :
Sources : There is currently no down-scale qualification of the "UGM", so the activity is allowed to begin at the "Sub-Atomic" level by allowing even atoms to generate spatial curvature. Atomic generation of spatial curvature is an element of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) that follows this Universal Gravity Model. Interface : The "Matter Hypothesis" in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) was a quantum mechanical event that was implemented within space as matter wave forms, and that model currently remains theoretically valid. Therefore, the interface between space and matter, where curvature is affected, operates in the realm of quantum mechanics at the "Planck Level". See the previous "Warpage Source" section that presents the quantum mechanical solution for the interface and allows sources at the quantum mechanical level. See also corollary 3 of "Hypothesis 3", and press (alt-left arrow) to return here. See the "Theoretical Support For Quantum Mechanics" and the "Physics Integration" derivatives of the "Theory Derivatives" topic.
-- . --
_____________________________ Extended changes that are proposed or affected by this Universal Gravity Model. Concept Source :
If this "UGM" is correct, then :
( See the "UGM" Universality" section of the "Questions And Problems" segment for discussion of the use of the word "nearly" in this context.)
-- . --
_____________________________ As used in this context, a generator is that which generates spatial curvature. Because symmetry is not explicitly addressed by this gravity proposal, it might be overlooked. But symmetry is an important feature because the physicist's world is so accustomed to the past century's asymmetrical theory. As currently formulated, the proposal is universally symmetrical in the following attributes:
1. The direction in which a generator is oriented is irrelevant. 2. The operation of a generator anywhere in the universe is identical to that of other generators. 3. The state and action of a generator is unchanged by its location within the "Universal Causal Sequence". Applicable qualificatives are those stated in the "UGM"; e.g., spatial curves can impact spatial curves. ( "Hypothesis 8")
4. All generators of spatial curvature operate in the same manner regardless of size. ( "Hypothesis 10") 5. No motion qualificative is imposed upon the "UGM".
This is the current state of the proposal. It is still incipient and is, therefore, imminently subject to alteration, but there is currently no reason for basic alteration.
-- . --
________________________________ When publication of this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) started, there was no supporting evidence of which the author was aware. The thought of publishing it was unsettling, but publication was started because the idea intuitively felt valid. After beginning publication, supporting evidence started coming to mind, so the idea, despite its problems, was not removed from the web site. It seemed to explain things. Finally, you will see in current references as you read, that scientific findings continue to be published that support it.
_____________________________ Probable "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" More news has been received of support for this "UGM" Universal Gravity Model), and therefore for the entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), and this time, was found in universal extremity. The universe's largest objects appear to be its filaments. Like great trash bins, they have accumulated every type and form of matter and object, and are so large that they contain entire galaxies. Some span hundreds of millions of light years. It had already been noticed that filaments have a common structure, and neither that structure nor maintenance of its structural integrity could be explained until now. The announcement (referenced below) was received in August of 2021 that a research team had detected rotation about its longitudinal axis in one of them.
A research team of the "Leibniz Institute For Astrophysics" in Potsdam, Germany discovered filament rotation about its longitudinal axis, which was the central prediction of this "UGM" (universal gravity model). Although not fast when compared to intergalactic distances, a filament containing entire galaxies can rotate at 200,000 miles per hour, which will be generating a great deal of disruptive centrifugal force that should distroy the object. If you are wondering how a filament retains entire galaxies that are swinging about at 200,000 miles per hour, then please review this "UGM" (universal gravity model) theory. This "UGM" predicted the discovery of massive amounts of gravity in those bodies, and described its source. This author has been waiting for the discovery and announcement of empirical evidence of that source, which was provided by that Leibniz Institute research team. Thus, it validates this "UGM", and possibly this entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). Thus, the source of filaments, galactic alignment, and other features seems to have been identified. See the "Aggremmass" section of the "Black Hole" construct.
( After waiting for years for such fine quality evidence, this author now begins the psychologically trying wait for the finding of a single coherent filament that is not rotating. Such non-rotation might stress or repudiate these universal models.) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Oct 2021, p. 9, "Twisters In The Cosmic Web" Extracted from "Nature Astronomy" of 14 June 2021 and reported in "Sky & Telescope" by Govert Schilling) A description of filaments with some history may be found in the following reference. Unfortunately, since it was a special issue, it was not dated.
-- . --
_____________________________ For coverage of spatial wave detection, see the "Empirical Evidence" section of the "Soliton" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic.
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- -- . -- Scientists and theorists have been unable to explain two major events of the early universe that are needed to explain today's universe. This "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) offers answers. There are details in this story that are ignored, not because they are unimportant, but because they are irrelevant to this causative sequence. For example, quark behavior is important, but is irrelevant here, and its exclusion disrupts nothing in this discussion, so it is excluded. ( "Hypothesis 2" and "Hypothesis 12" receive support in the "Universal Inception Model". The inception model is presented out of sequence afterwards in this document because it is a complication that is not entirely required by this "UGM". (And because work began with this "UGM", which prompted work on the "UIM".))
-- . -- -- . -- 1. Problem: Although the universe was initially a fraction of its current size, it was created with the same, or maybe more, matter than exists today. Therefore, scientists have been mystified by why the universe did not collapse under its own mass into a "Black Hole" immediately after creation. 1. Solution: This "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) reveals that the high-speed "Great Expansion" event at inception (Originally known as the big bang.) had no restraint initially due to the ionized state of all matter; i.e., there were no whole atoms. None. The universe was filled with disconnected free-floating protons and electrons, so there were no wide-spread atomic-level accelerative masses to create the spatial curvature that would have been manifested as gravity. ( "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 10".) In other words, despite its great mass, the "UGM" reveals that there was simply no gravity to collapse the universe in the beginning. None. Immediate "De-Ionization" was not possible because the universe was too dense and too hot from "Matter Creation" , so there was a collapse delay while the universe raced outward. ( The impact of this event is part of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) discussion that is presented after this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model).) -- . -- -- . -- -- . -- 2. Problem: This "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) showed how the universe prevented its collapse immediately after creation. But that left us with a universe that was racing toward dissolution by total dispersion. Scientists have been unable to explain how that was prevented by an abrupt deceleration of the universal expansion not long after creation. This "UGM" also explains that event. 2. State Transition: As explained in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), the universe was nearly homogeneous, so changes in all regions happened nearly simultaneously across the entire universe. As it explosively expanded, the universal average temperature dropped simultaneously in all regions. 2. Solution: The temperature drop allowed proton and electron movement to slow so that they could link. The UIM suggests that "De-Ionization" began and proceeded quickly at about the same time across the entire universe. De-ionization is done by combining those positive protons and negative electrons, thereby creating rotating bodies, atoms, that began warping space (gravity). That event would have been nearly instantaneous across the universe because it was packed with free protons and electrons to create atoms. (The simultaneity and distribution of this event is discussed extensively in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). ) Ergo, the universe-wide de-ionization event also signaled the universal formation of atoms. Although each was vanishingly tiny, they were the mass of the entire universe, and their accelerative spatial warping began an abrupt deceleration of the initial expansion. ( "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 10".) The matter that we now see in celestial bodies was uniformly distributed throughout the universe as independent atoms in a smaller universe, so it was relatively dense. That dense material began the universal clumping of matter into stars, galaxies, etc., and those rotating bodies increased spatial curvature and universal deceleration. (Matter distribution at that stage is discussed in the following "Universal Inception Model".) Neutrons: The neutron was ignored in the presentation because it was inactive and of little consequence until this point. However, the sudden appearance of spatial curvature pulled the neutron into the massive rotating celestial bodies that were forming, so that it suddenly began assisting with the deceleration. Background material:
( The impact of this event is part of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) that follows this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) theory. )
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- We need an evaluation of the complex geometry of the curvature, but it now intuitively seems that large bodies may manifest more gravity at the equator than at the poles. If correct, then that effect will pressure orbiting bodies to process into equatorial orbits throughout the universe. Reasoning :
However, the curve topology must be ascertained before we can be certain. For example, we do not at this time know how much of the equatorially manifested wave may be forced into lateral expression, perhaps even warping it into a spherical uniformity.
-- . --
_____________________________ Strong supportive evidence for this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) is provided by black holes.
-- . --
_____________________________ The "Dark Matter" topic is directly generated by the "UGM" (universal gravity model) and is, therefore, importantly supportive of the "UGM". However, it is of potential interest in much broader topics, so it has been moved to the "Dark Matter" segment of the "Theory Derivatives topic to assist scholastic searches. Please click here, "Dark Matter"
-- . --
_____________________________ The "Dark Energy" topic is directly generated by the "UGM" (universal gravity model) and is, therefore, importantly supportive of the "UGM". However, due to its extensive complexity and due to its broad impact on the entire universe, this subject has been moved to the "Dark Energy" segment of the "Theory Derivatives" topic to assist scholastic searches.
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- The toy gyroscope may seem inappropriate in serious discussion, but it reveals important attributes and behavior that are universal. We must first note that it has been entirely misunderstood. Mach, in the nineteenth century, and Einstein, influenced by Mach much later, believed that the distant stars have a magical influence on a spinning gyroscope to keep it oriented in a certain direction.
( Please note that the word "believed" was used in that paragraph. Being unable to prove it, Mach and Einstein based their work on a belief without an empirical foundation, and were able to sell it. Therefore, perhaps the "UGM" (universal gravity model) will be allowed the same latitude since it already has a substantial "Empirical" body of evidential support.
As stated in the "UGM", a spinning object continually generates a standing spatial wave that is akin to a "soliton". That standing spatial wave resists movement through the surrounding space. Therefore, the material gyroscope, that is connected to its standing wave, resists re-orientation. A simple explanation, so a magical link to the entire distant universe is no longer needed. That point will become critically important, so let us now make the argument a bit more explicit to insure that it is understood. The statement is being made here that the orientation and spatial translation of the entire universe is now irrelevant in a discussion of local gravity. It no longer matters. All that matters is the relation of a mass to its local space ; the space in which it resides. This foundation is diametrically opposed to the foundation adopted by Mach and Einstein, of which they were aware. Let us say, for example, that you are piloting your space yacht and you want to know if you are accelerating. Stars are dangerously unreliable, as you learned within the Coalsack nebula, so you open the window, stick out your hand, and place beside you a page torn from your operator's manual. Then you watch it as you press the accelerator pedal. As you feel accelerative warping kick in, the page rushes to the rear and out of sight, giving you your speed, relocation, and amount of accelerative curvature regardless of the state, activity, or orientation of the rest of the universe. This seemingly minor matter of behavior in toy gyroscopes will have a major impact on how we view the universe if it is found to be acceptable. ( See also corollary 3 of "Hypothesis 3" which strengthens the local spatial curvature construct, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.)
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- -- . -- -- . -- This is so obvious that it was almost ignored as inconsequentially obvious, but many are hanging onto it as part of a minor religious belief in relativity, so it must be addressed to free their minds. Contrary to popular mythology, neither Einstein nor relativity invented the concept of spatial curvature or gravity. Since the observation of displaced celestial objects was a proof for the theory of relativity, then it is a proof for the Universal Gravity Model.
( if one feels compelled to rely on relativity, one may first want to review relativity's "Analysis" in the "Nature Of Time" topic.) -- . -- Stars behind other stars can sometimes be observed to the side of the foreground star because their light path is bent by the UGM's acceleratively-created spatial deformation; i.e., the foreground star's spatial deformation redirects the background star's light. (See "Corollary 2" of "Hypothesis 12".) Note that it is done, not by gravity, but by spatial curvature.
-- . -- -- . -- The light of distant galaxies behind a massive galaxy is sometimes bent around the foreground galaxy, and thereby magnified by the UGM's acceleratively-created spatial deformation. (See Corollary 2 of "Hypothesis 12".) In other words, it is not gravitational lensing, but spatial lensing; i.e., magnification by spatial deformation. (*ref. Source: "Astronomy"; Special Issue "Origin And Fate Of The Universe", 2020 not dated, p.84-89, "The Universe's Cosmic Lenses", by Liz Kruesi.)
-- . -- A large part of the entire universe is between the astronomer and the edge of the universe. It has been there for as long as the universe has existed. The many massive bodies residing there have been deforming the universe for that entire time, so the universal compound curvature may be indescribably complex. (See "Corollary 1" of "Hypothesis 8".) A writer recently claimed that this is incorrect, and attempted to prove it by ascertaining that light always travels in straight lines throughout the universe. However, the two previous scientifically observed and reported effects prove that light does not "always travel in straight lines". Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the astronomer, who sees farther today than anybody in all of history, may not understand what he sees.
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- The entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model)
-- . --
________________________________ -- . -- -- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- An objection that will be voiced by the old establishment is that the author did not receive the education of a theoretical physicist, and cannot know enough to write lucidly about this matter. And that men who have devoted their lives to the subject continue to work, so it would be difficult for somebody with no training to add anything.
Doctor Einstein believed that the gravity of a mass causes space to curve, which is in opposition to this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). "The UGM" presents gravity as human perception of the results of a reality that cannot be perceived by a person; i.e., results caused by the curvature of space. Furthermore, the proposal states that that curvature is caused by a deeper mechanism. (See "Foundation Hypotheses" and "Rotation Effects".) In books on the subject, there is another, more subtle, difference between his theory and this proposal. The explainers speak of Einstein's accelerated motion; i.e., motion, which is not the state of acceleration that is proposed here. This proposal, on the other hand, is not presently interested in motion, but only in acceleration. ( See the "Hypothesis 5 Explication".) In explanations presented by others (e.g., *ref. Source: "The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene, 1999, pp 67-78, ISBN 0-393-04688-5), it is sometimes difficult to know when they speak of gravity causing spatial curvature, and when they speak of spatial curvature causing gravity. It has thereby been possible for generations of physicists to offer descriptions of the subject that only appeared to explain so that the rest of us were convinced that we simply could not understand their writing. Others used Einstein's work to predict black holes, singularities, in the universe. The ensuing, and deserved, accolades overshadowed the fact that black holes were predicted a century earlier based upon the work of Newton. Using only Newtonian mechanics, John Michell hypothesized black holes in 1783, and even calculated the size of the event horizon. Like all who run far ahead of their peers, he was ignored.
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- Einstein deserves his recognition. He also worked in a community, and not in a vacuum. He talked and corresponded with scientists, theoreticians, mathematicians, academics, etc. about the work that he and they were doing. He lived in an era that sought theoretical physics, and he incorporated their ideas into his own thoughts. Some of those men were recognized and some were not. Professor Rothman names a few in his synopsis, although all of us tend to overlook the mind-bending work of mathematicians who influenced him.
Those who have not done it, do not know the pain of extreme stress endured by a man who forces his mind to seek an answer that lies outside the frontiers of human knowledge. In other words, he was not a man awaiting inspiration, which is easy, but one who forced his mind to labor toward an unknown goal in his latter days. It is believed that Doctor Einstein endured that lonely stress for years in his pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and it is believed that that lonely life of stress is part of why he gave up at the end.
-- . --
_____________________________ When space and gravity are discussed in print, the writers usually are compelled to also discuss time, because Einstein conflated space and time; even to the point of calling time a dimension of space, although he was a bit vague about how all of that worked. It appears to be a fun subject to write about because of Einstein's treatment of time, and has prompted much fantasy fiction, as opposed to science fiction. To understand why "time" is not conflated with gravity in this "UGM" (universal gravity model) presentation, see the "Nature Of Time" topic. In other words, there is no such thing as space-time.
-- . --
_____________________________ There may be problems with the theory of relativity. The author's initiation into the subject was when a high-school physics teacher mentioned the theory to tell the class why it was impossible to exceed the "Speed Limit" of light. That particular and popular reason was immediately and obviously invalid, and it was so obvious that he said nothing, because he was surely misunderstanding. (Also, he was sitting amidst extremely intelligent young men who would take his thoughts to college as their own.) There was no misunderstanding. Despite seeing the same in print in subsequent years, sixty years of consideration has not softened the initial objection. Surely, there are others who are bothered by a problem or two in the relativity theory. Also, the childishly obvious "Nature Of Time Assessment", presents a problem for the foundation of relativity. A glance at the set of equations that describe and prove relativity in Einstein's book finds time variables throughout. Those variables are undefined factors, thereby rendering those equations unsolvable; i.e., "Null" values are logically unaddressable.
Retention of the theory of relativity because it forecasts spatial bending is invalid. Spatial bending is forecasted and explained in deeper detail by the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). The "UGM" (universal gravity model) offers more problems for it. For example, the new perspective on "Gyroscopic Behavior" changes everything, because it alters the way in which the entire universe has been addressed since Mach's opinions in the nineteenth century, as later adopted by Einstein. Regardless of the validity of the "UGM", Einstein's anthropocentric view of the universe was incorrect, and may have been an attempt to correct a Profound problem that can be seen in the foundation philosophy of his theory. ( This is not an attempt to abandon relativity. That would be foolish since it explains important matters. But this suggests that it, at least, needs changes and recognized limits, and should be addressed soon by competent physicists, because it may be functioning as a roadblock against scientific progress.) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy"; Special Issue "Origin And Fate Of The Universe", 2020 not dated, p.22-33, "Relativity: Right or Wrong?", by Jesse Emspak.) (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 105, Nov 2017, pp. 344-347)
-- . --
________________________________ This is for those of us who know little or nothing of physics. Using our Creator's teaching method, it sometimes helps to attach the physical person to an idea, which gives the intellect a foundation upon which to work. So let us do that now. Since this is science, let us stop here to note that it is possible that we have it all wrong. There may be something involved that has nothing to do with space. That happens often in science. Colored quarks confused this author so much in the sixties that he gave up on understanding quarks, and discovered decades later that the colors were the nonsense of young physicists. But if something besides space is involved in this discussion, we are currently not aware of it, so let us continue with space. You are not alone if you have trouble following the talk about space in physics. The problem is that our senses were not designed to detect space. But you were created with an enjoyment of abstract thought, so you want to know about the space of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), so let us now make a shallow dive in as gently as possible. Neither you nor anybody else will ever experience space directly, but you can experience it indirectly, so you can indirectly experience the most abstract part of this discussion. When you stand, you feel the result of the local curvature of space on the bottoms of your feet. When we knew only that which we could see and feel, we invented the word "gravity" to name the magic that seems to be pressing you against the floor, and we will continue using the "gravity" word in ordinary conversation. But that which is actually pressing you to the floor is this UGM's spatial curvature. Since the spatial curve in which you reside at the moment cannot be seen, you do not know its shape or size. But you do know that it is very large compared to you. It starts in the earth far below your feet, rises to engulf you, and extends far out into the solar system. You are not harmed by that powerful curve because you were born into it, and it is part of your environment. The curve's shape is actually far more complex than that because, according to the "UGM", it is composed of a huge number of small curves originating in the earth that are additive. Then it is warped by other curves in the universe such as those coming from the sun and moon. The curve's shape might never be described in words. Physicists will need to use a specialized branch of math called topology to describe and study its characteristics. As usual, the result will be of help to nobody except mathematicians and physicists. But, since you red this far, you now have a general grasp of the subject. Now let us back up to the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) to summarize this personal discussion. Space is dragged by the acceleration of the circling masses below you, and that dragging causes a warping and curving of space around the earth with us inside that curvature. The common word for that effect, and for our perception of it, is "gravity". (( Fear not. If you are not accustomed to such discussions, you may have felt a momentary touch of primitive fear when you red that. But the mechanism has operated for billions of years and will continue to gently function, because it was created for you.))
-- . --
________________________________
-- . --
_____________________________ See also the preceding "Gyroscopic Behavior" section of the Universal Gravity Model Support segment, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here. Might the child's gyroscope become a serious gyroscopist's tool for small-scale, and even amateur, investigation ? Does the table-top gyroscope have enough mass and speed to attain waves big enough for demonstration and experimentation ? Or the lab-scale gyroscope ? Where is the standing wave located ?
What might be the topology of the gyroscope's wave ?
Why does the resistance to movement by the gyroscope have directional specificity ? Why, for example, is there no resistance to moving it parallel to the plane of the rotor ? Does the direction of the resistance to movement indicate the wave shape ?
Are findings for the gyroscope generalizable to all rotating generators ? If the gyroscopist could obtain any bit of empirical information about the wave, that one small item could point to far reaching information about the universe.
-- . --
_____________________________ Like time travel, higher dimensions are fun to consider. And there is no evidence to support either. They appear to be entirely a product of the wonderful imagination that the Creator gave to us. Therefore, the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) currently has only the three "Empirically" observable spatial dimensions, and no more are expected. Where multiple dimensions are referenced in this document, they are those three dimensions. As is done in computer programming and in string theory, more dimensions can be invented, and programmers routinely use many-dimensioned objects. But invented dimensions are man-made tools, and not reality, which programmers understand, and programmers know that naming those ideas "dimensions", which were invented for boxes and buildings, is a dangerous act of fairy tale deception which should be explained for simple minds.
-- . --
_____________________________ You may have noticed the phrase "at nearly all physical levels" in the "Summation Of Changes" section of the "Hypotheses And Construct" segment. The word "nearly" is used because the model does not yet include the entire universe's curvature. The problem is one of logic wherein philosophy meets reality. Universal logic suggests that the entire universe be treated as a standard body with its generated spatial curvature, but that requires addressing the universe's boundary to place its curvature, which is a logical impossibility due to "Paradox". The paradox is that to set or define a boundary requires the existence of something on both sides of it, but by definition, the universe is everything, (See "Corollary 3" of "Hypothesis 1", and "Axiom 1" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model).) and outside of it is not even "Nothing". It is "Null", and therefore is not even an "outside"; it can be described only as "not inside". ( You probably immediately noticed that the above means that the universe cannot expand because there is nothing into which it can expand. Relax about that for a while. A solution for it will be offered later within the "Dark Energy" derivative. ) So by definition, the universe has no boundary; but it does have a limit. The limit was set by the "Universal Inception" and began to expand later as expressed in the "Dark Energy" derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic. The limit is the point beyond which nothing exists; there is not even a detectable "beyond" at that point per "Axiom 1" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). Therefore, it is not possible for the universe entity to express spatial curvature and gravity outside itself. When considered as an entity as in the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic, its gravity and spatial curvature are expressed entirely and only within itself. But maybe we can breath a sigh of relief because it appears that we cannot access "Empirical" evidence of any kind about perimeter areas of the universe because the universe limit point may have already exceeded the "Light Speed" limit with respect to us. That presents a strong possibility that it will never be possible for us to investigate it. That possibility is addressed in the "Dark Energy" derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic, and a possible solution is presented. If that solution is viable, then it may be possible for us to know things about it as suggested in the "Universal Total" section of the "Universal Energy" derivative.
-- . --
________________________________ The "Universal Gravity Model" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was March 28, 2018. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 20180328. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, March 28, 2018 with revisions, or 20180328 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
You can click here to obtain contact information.
-- . --
________________________________
The size and complexity of physics theory on this document is so great that this date table can no longer be maintained. Please refer to dates in each local subject header such as the above.
20180328 original publication. ( The "CoreDate" protocol is used for its self-sort, system friendliness, and other features.)
-- . --
__________________________________________________
Return to document contents. Contents Of The Universal Inception Model
End of the Universal Inception contents.
________________________________ -- . --
_____________________________ A model, presented as a body of hypotheses and "Empirical" evidence, of the beginning of the universe. Under construction. Supporting "Empirical" evidence continues to come in years after work began. -- . -- Lest you be led astray or waste your time : This work is very new. Large parts of this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) are at odds with theory that is currently accepted by most Professional scientists, so there is a strong possibility that it will be rejected by that community.
-- . -- See the "Sources Of Support" appendix. -- . -- Being unrealistically optimistic, the author expected the model, that was only in his mind, to be simple when written. You will find that that is true of the components. But the model (in toto) has too many complex interacting variables to be simple in a casual reading. It might be best if your first reading were straight through without reading the supporting links. That might paint the big picture so you could later enjoy detailed readings. -- . -- We are usually unaware of language on a cognitive level. We just start using it when it is needed. But see the "Human Bean Language Problems" appendix to see examples of problems that it can create for us in work like this. This theoretical construct has encountered many such problems. When one is encountered, the author attempts to declare it as a point of interest.
-- . --
_____________________________
Nomenclature
Developed here is that "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). The model physically spans the entire universe, and temporally covers everything from the first action to stellar ignition. Considering the great "Temporal", mass, and spatial scales of the universe, it may be as surprising to you as it was to this logician-theorist that the beginning of the inception can be identified with such precision.
The inception event organized itself, created everything that would ever exist, prepared for all future events, and set everything in motion. At the point where the inception completed its task throughout the universe, the stars began igniting as the future became inevitable.
You will find that much of the nature and operation of today's universe can be extracted from the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and some of that is done in the "Theory Derivatives" topic that follows this "UIM". "Teleology" :
The presented model of the inception is not intended to include all that Mankind knows about the subject. It is a framework to explain major events that gave us today's universe, and on which the myriad detail events can be hung. For example, although the massive and detailed body of particle physics is not included, its relative location in the "Causal-Chain" and its fundamental generation events are definitively covered to give us a sturdier and more complete foundation for particle physics than we had before. Although not originally an objective, we will also discover that this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) process has entirely replaced the embarrassing, and obviously erroneous, anthropomorphism of the old "Big Bang". That will be done when you get to the "Great Expansion" segment with its various and interesting sections and sub-sections. (( Yes, the author, also, saw it. After typing this sub-section, he sat in fear, meditation, and prayer about a little man's rediculous self-pride. This is dangerous work for a mere man.
-- . --
-- . -- This "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) is based upon facts that were found by hard-working experimental scientists. With that foundation, it became a cohesive body of facts, logic, and hypotheses constructed by this author. But the inception model turned out to be disagreeably complex.
The presentation starts a conversation and/or logic thread at the universe inception's beginning and proceeds to that thread's end. It repeatedly returns to or near the beginning repeating the process for another thread. That is done numerous times. It is noted for you at each thread change and the stage is reset. As each thread is developed, it becomes tied into the others. The last thread is the most complex because it spatially and "temporally" spans the inception, supported by and supporting prior threads. Do not be depressed if you do not immediately retain all of the details, or even all of the logic threads. The fun will be in understanding each and how all fit together to create the UIM. After it is grasped, the process can assume its natural multi-pathed linear topology in your mind.
A simplified "Sequenced Event Table" summation is presented at the end. It will help you tie things together, and it makes obvious some interesting subtleties of the model. Also, there are some interesting theories, observations, and conjectures in the following "Derivative" topic that are based upon the completed "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) topic and upon the previous "UGM" (universal gravity model) topic. But you are strongly encouraged to resist the temptation to look prematurely at the end out of sequence. This is not a fiction novel. It is a complex construct of logic and facts in which each piece is built upon all that goes before it.
-- . --
-- . -- "Empiricism" is the foundation of science. Without unflinching, hard nosed empiricism, science will cease to exist. We may have lost sight of that for a while in the twentieth century, which is why that philosophy is presented here within that which should be entirely a science presentation. The most beautiful logical or mathematical structure conceivable is worthless without substantiating experiment and/or observation that ties it into reality. If there were a king of science, then he would have dirty hands. Prof. Alan Guth in physics at MIT, invented an "inflation" theory in 1979 and prepended it to the descredited "Big Bang" to explain the speed of the inception. He began with Einstein's equations, used time, and developed his theory with math, all of which physicists approve. The scientific community loved it so much that it was immediately adopted and other theorists contributed more equations to it, so nearly the entire community of physicists became participants in it.
One of the consequences of such deception is that this writer lived with the knowledge since 1979 that the inception had been solved, and solved by a far better educated and more intelligent man, so it was pointless for this ignorant writer to concern himself about it.
( Also, please see the "Science Philosophy" appendix, and the "Empiricism" appendix.) As much as possible, this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) is based upon evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, particle physics, quantum mechanics, et etc. It was the accumulating evidence from the hands of the empirical investigators that inspired and guided this work. It is continually tested against new evidence as it comes in, and the new evidence is referenced.
-- . --
-- . -- As stated in the presentation of the "UGM",(Universal Gravity Model), the need for, and value of, math is recognized. However, the author has been math-challenged since seeing long division solved on a blackboard in the first grade for the eighth grade of a one-room country schoolhouse. Long division's structured recursive estimation without written specification baffled the little six-year old, so he decided then and there that, whatever math might be, he could not do it. Regardless, no math will be presented. But that is also a blessing. Deprived of math, the author is forced to strive for a clear, logical, and easily understood presentation of the topic that professionals might find credible, thereby giving the additional benefit of making the model understandable and fun for the general college graduate. ( Michael Faraday (1781-1887) was a British physicist and brilliant researcher and theorist, but he was incapable in math, so his work is known by few. However, James Clerk Maxwell is famous because he studied Faraday's research and summarized it in four famous equations. Einstein then based his work on Maxwell's work, which was based on Faraday's genius.)
-- . --
-- . -- The following presentation assumes that you have red (read) the "Nature Of Time" dissertation on this theory document before reading this. Also, this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), is deeply entwined with the preceding "UGM", (Universal Gravity Model). -- . --
-- . -- Axiom 1 : By definition, the universe is everything. Although that statement looks ridiculously obvious to a thinking man, it is often ignored by writers and publishers, thereby leading to ridiculous speculation and to the confusion of laymen and young physicists. To attempt discussion of anything outside the universe is to enter the realm of theology or of fantasy. If "Empirical" evidence is found of something new, then it will be, by definition, part of the universe. There is no "outside" of everything, unless you are proposing that you are God or a writer of fairy tales, and certainly not a scientist. Scientists are, by definition, "Empiricists" who ground their work in "Empirical" evidence. One working outside the realm of empirical knowledge is not a scientist. Even theorists must be empiricists, endeavoring to give their theories rock-solid foundations in experimental reality. A Point Of Interest :
( At one time, the statement of obvious fact was seldom done. But general education and morality have degraded along with the degradation of western culture by Democrats and Socialists, so you will find Axiom 1 formally referenced in this "UIM" and other theory on this document.)
-- . --
-- . -- Axiom 2 : Creation of the universe was an extraordinarily unique event. In scope and logical construct there is nothing comparable in all of universal history. You will find this axiom helpful during our logical development. -- . --
-- . -- Axiom 3 : In science, "Empirical" evidence supersedes all else.
Belief, tradition, icon, iconic persons, and religion are not scientific evidence. Where empirical evidence conflicts with belief, tradition, icon, iconic personage, religion, or anything else, only the evidence is acceptable to science.
Theory, hypothesis, and math are not evidence. Scientific validity requires that theory, hypothesis, and math have evidentiary support. If a theory or hypothesis is disputed by evidence, then that theory, hypothesis, or math is invalid.
( Kuhn's work is an excellent synthesis of theory from observation. But it, and those like it, are not about science and not even about its philosophy, but are about the sociology of the community of scientists; the culture of the scientific community; i.e., the manner in which the community selects, chooses, and decides complex matters; the manner in which that community applies Axiom 3 and the other philosophies and methods of science.
-- . --
-- . -- Before beginning your study of this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), brace yourself for some mind-bending spatial events. At the very least, you might want to review "Hypothesis 12" in the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), with its "Understanding Curvature Impact" explanation of spatial curvature. But a thorough reading of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) might make you more comfortable with the Inception Model because this "UIM" does not cover the nature of space as well as does the "UGM" (universal gravity model). And while reading, remember the "UGM" empirical support in its "Support" segment.
-- . --
_____________________________ This account of the universal inception takes place somewhere in the first half million years of the universe. Maybe. And starts within the first second of time. Maybe. If you truly expected events to be labeled with years, millennia, and seconds then please read and digest the "Nature Of Time" dissertation on this theory document. Furthermore, contrary to what we have been told for the past century, there were none of today's tick marks, such as daybreak, clocks, and calendars, for the synchronization of various events. Even "sub-atomic" events may have been different then. We are not even certain of when physics, as we know it, became operational, so we cannot even reference atomic vibrations.* How fast was fast when there were no miles or hours ? And that is not even the most fundamental problem; e.g., we cannot even be certain of basic philosophical principles, such as causation, in that era. ( * Some physics is addressed later in the UIM as explanatory and as models for future action.) The fact that other writers have ignored those fundamental problems is part of why understanding their theorizing has been so difficult for us. Their writing was flawed at its logical and philosophical foundation. Additionally, new mechanisms are presented for the inception that replace the inadequate old anthropomorphic mechanisms, and because it is more realistic, this new model presents a highly ambiguous picture of the event. That ambiguity is not detrimental to theory, but actually gets closer to reality than do older theories, and may make it impossible to estimate duration. If you give it some thought as you read, you will find that initial events could have spanned seconds or billions of years without change in any event. All of that also gives support to the "Nature Of Time" presentation. However, we humans feel a great need for relative comparison to help us grasp things and events from our perspective to help us fit the awesome universe into our minds. Therefore, Professional scientists have given us their best guesses for various events. But those were guesses and were imminently subject to change because it is so difficult to see back that far. Also, this model's construct is such that even the pseudo-logic of "time" cannot be used for that period. For example, when work began on this model hypothesis, universal "De-Ionization" happened around four hundred thousand years after the start of universal expansion, according to other theorists. That was great because all that was needed was to fit events into that period. Just weeks into this work, however, new developments in this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) had pushed event "Speed" even beyond the phenomenal speed that normally conservative scientists already doubted, thereby changing the time of the de-ionization event. Worse, as this sentence was typed six months later, never-imagined mechanisms of Axiom 2 had broken the speed bounds of Man's tiny reality. So remember that universal inception is subject to sliding around as physicists and theorists continue working. It might be best to just forget the "Temporal" nonsense. That which is most stable is the following sequence of events and their relative durations. Maybe. ( Also, see the "Temporal" topic discussion in the appendices.)
-- . --
________________________________ ( Thread start.
Instead of at the beginning, let us begin close to home where evidence has been discovered that will have a great impact on the entire model even back to the beginning. With that knowledge in hand, we will then go to the beginning, which will be impacted by that evidence. In 1965, scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of American Bell Laboratories discovered a cosmic background microwave radiation, CMB, that seems to pervade the entire universe. Anywhere that a radio telescope is pointed, that radiation is encountered. It was born very early in universal history before the "De-Ionization" event that will be covered in the "Expansion Failure" section.
The CMB will become a key piece of "Empirical" evidence for our inception model. Since discovery, the cosmic microwave background, CMB, has been mapped multiple times by various scientists using various instruments, and is always found to be uniformly distributed and evenly heated with its average temperature varying only slightly in ten thousandths of a degree around 2.73K degrees (kelvin) across today's entire universe. Except for a few disruptions in it, across the entire universe, the CMB has an unnaturally extreme smoothness and uniformity that seemed impossible before this inception model explained it. Its variance, universe-wide, is in ten thousandths of a degree. (We will address that unnatural uniformity again.) ( A mention of the event was encountered recently in which the discovery by Wilson and Penias was derogatorily referred to as accidental. Perhaps. But if so, it was the same accident that was the majority of scientific discoveries throughout history.
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Jan. 2020, p. 10; Wilson and Penias shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery.) ( CBR to CMB
( See a universal map of the CMB, showing detailed temperature variations, that was recorded by the Planck space telescope.
-- . --
________________________________ The universe had an extraordinary smoothness and uniformity that required some kind of information exchange across it to attain that condition. Its size and expansion speed required that that exchange be faster than the universal "Speed Limit". But a fundamental tenet of the physics religion is that nothing can exceed the "Speed" of light in this universe, thus creating the horizon problem. This problem was known among scientists as the "event horizon problem", and was a great mystery.
-- . -- Nothing could have communicated the state of the CMB from one side of the universe to the other side, because the universe is too big and was expanding too fast at the start. But somehow the entire universe attained a uniform CMB.
-- . -- Notice the explicit statement in the "Expansion Failure" section of the "Support" segment of the "UGM" (universal gravity model) that states, "The matter that we now see in celestial bodies was uniformly distributed throughout the universe as independent atoms.". For that to happen, the "Sub-Atomic" components, first, had to be uniformly distributed. But again, how was that possible in the face of the horizon problem ? -- . -- The astronomers who are surveying the universe have found that today's mass in stars, galaxies, etc. is smoothly distributed throughout the observable universe. But again, how is that smoothness possible in the face of the horizon problem ?
-- . --
________________________________
_____________________________ Let us take another, more critical look at that evidence in the preceding "Event Horizon Problem" segment. The solution to the horizon problem was right in front of us. The three observations above, that present the problem, also give its solution. The real problem for the scientist was not the event horizon, but was failure to acknowledge the simple truth of Axiom 2, so we were looking for anthropocentric answers.
Instead of recognizing the uniqueness, Axiom 2, and the evidence, Axiom 3, we have been forcing the inception to be a dramatic explosion in human terms to produce a psychologically-satisfying, impressive, and chaotic nuclear fireball. But that facile answer was incorrect. Given:
Note that the orthogonal geometry of the universe that was inertially maintained from the "Advent" of the Universal Inception imposed "Universal Uniformity" "Temporally " as well as spatially. That will be important in the following activity. The universal inception, which was previously called the "Big Bang", delivered that uniformity as one of the universe's construction mechanisms, and with no interference, that uniformity was maintained, except for small perturbations that will be addressed, while the universe raced outwards. The three observations in the previous "Event Horizon Problem" segment state that fact and the first and third are still extant. They create an obvious pointer back to the beginning condition of uniformity. Many will go no farther in this account because, even for this theorist, the presented foundation is so hard to believe. But the scientist, the empiricist, must be guided by the evidence without reservation. Universal Uniformity, "UU", will be enhanced by other developments in the "UIM" as we proceed. ( The fact that "Empirically" supported data is hard to believe is of little or no consequence in science. That which is easy to believe is merely the familiar in which we spent our childhood.)
-- . --
_____________________________ ( Thread start.
Now, while holding onto the previous information, let us go back to the beginning and allow the universe to begin expanding. We will begin addressing the characteristics, mechanics, and affects of that expansion in this section, and more will be added later. The universe was cooling through its expansion, which would allow a major event to take place in it. Let us refer to it in the next few paragraphs as the "Event". It happened while the initial expansion was still processing.
Remember that the "Universal Uniformity" was "Temporal" as well as spatial. At that point, the universe was a dense, nearly homogeneous mass of "Sub-Atomic" parts that were still too hot to combine. That mass affected a physical and electromagnetic impedance to the passage of photons. With "Universal Uniformity", "UU", it was still expanding uniformly. Suddenly, and nearly simultaneously across the entire universe, its expansion hit a temperature that was low enough to allow the quarks and gluons to assemble into protons and neutrons, which they promptly did. Those positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons then immediately combined into hydrogen atoms. So let us change the name of that combining into hydrogen atoms from the "Event" to the "Hydrogen Event". The physical and electromagnetic impedance barrier was removed by that hydrogen event, which allowed the unimpeded passage of photons. (The source of that "Sub-Atomic" matter will be addressed in the following "Matter Source" thread.) Suddenly and nearly simultaneously across the entire universe, its mass became bound into those atoms. A hydrogen atom is impossibly small and undetectable by a person, but nearly all of the universe's mass was tied up in them. As soon as the atoms formed, they began producing the disruptive spatial curvature that we perceive as gravity, and the mass of the entire universe began tugging on itself. (See the "UGM" (universal gravity model), and its "Support" segment in this document.) At this point in the model, we have the mass of the universe delicately poised and gravitationally straining to continue the process, but let us delay that birth for a few minutes because there are additional matters that we need to cover at this point. When it begins, you will find that its birth was made possible by its Universal Uniformity ( "UU") as previously presented. Although it would sometimes appear to be working toward it, never again would the universe attain that extreme organization, which could be produced, and had to be produced, by this inception. ( Sequence Note
(*ref. Probable verification of this phase of universal inception came in "Astronomy", Feb. 2019 p. 11. The European Observatory's Very Large Telescope photographed Lyman-alpha radiation being produced by atomic hydrogen clouds spread across intergalactic expanses of the early universe. (The "Atomic" nature of the hydrogen is stressed because it was still "Atomic" instead of today's "molecular" hydrogen clouds.).
( Astronomers have started finding galaxies with no dark matter. They are at a loss to explain how such galaxies could have formed, unless they are the result of very dense gas in the early universe, which is presented by this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). And an alternative solution is presented in the "Dark Matter" segment of the "Theory Derivatives".
-- . --
_____________________________ When the "Hydrogen Event" occurred, the matter that had been physically obstructing photons was suddenly combined into a smaller physical form in atoms, thereby reducing its interference with the passage of photons. Additionally much of the charged "Sub-Atomic" mass was neutralized by that combination, so its charge could no longer electromagnetically interfere with the streaming photons; i.e., the "Ions", that were charged free floating protons, that had been interfering with the passage of photons, were neutralized by combination with electrons to form atoms, thereby neutralizing their charges across the entire universe. The disappearance of those charged particles into neutral atoms is called "De-Ionization". That de-ionization immediately released the CMB to stream across the universe. So we know the cause of the de-ionization event and approximately when it took place. The entire CMB has been mapped in detail across the universe. It displays great orderliness, reflecting this theory's orthogonally ordered state of the universe. It also shows the slight disruptions that allowed subsequent stellar aggregations. -- . --
In summation, there may have been an event horizon, but it was made irrelevant in any case by these structure and structural mechanics that were created by the inception. ( Support for this De-Ionization section was presented in:
-- . --
________________________________
| <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> | ( If you are sensitive to logic problems, then the "Human Bean Language Problems" appendix may be of some help because you are now entering an area that may try you.) ( Thread start.
We have just finished developing features and events that are important to the composition and behavior of the model. Now, let us again return to the beginning to walk forward.
_____________________________ After living for nearly a century with the awe-inspiring image of a universe-wide nuclear explosion somehow birthing all of the universe's matter, energy, and space in the chaos of a jaw-dropping fireball, it may be difficult to trade that for this model. But such is the poetry of moving from emotional childhood into intellectual maturation. You will also find as you read that a nuclear explosion, or any other kind of explosion, is far too feeble and limited to accomplish that which actually happened. Notice, also, that the old "Big Bang" construct produced a nuclear explosion before there was any matter or energy available to fuel a nuclear explosion. Also, the explosion concept is of/from this universe, so it required the existence of this universe in which to explode before its explosion created this universe. Nonsense! The whole "Big Bang" idea is nonsense, which planted the need for a better theory in the mind of a man over half a century younger than he is now.
Per "Hypothesis 1" of the "Universal Gravity Model", the universe and space are geometrically-congruent. That means that every point in one has a uniquely matching point in the other. Therefore, neither exists independently of the other. ( "Big Bang"
( Do not give up. Changes may be needed, but you may also find support here for your previous work, and it may support expansion of that work. -- . -- Writers frequently like to discuss object sizes at the beginning, because they understand neither name-space mechanics nor the interactive dynamics of the concept of concepts, so let us kill that idea now. Remember that we are discussing the entire universe. By definition, there is nothing else per Axiom 1. So how does one state sizes in a non-existent universe ? Without a universe, there could be neither physics nor space. Without physics and space, there could be no dimensions. And without dimensions there could be no sizes. Do not be disheartened if this discussion feels alien or confusing. If you press on, you will find that this theory is logically much easier to acquire and use than the "Big Bang". We are working with concepts and conditions that cannot exist in our current world. Re-read this Universal Inception Model topic after your mind has rested. (( This author is empathetic with you because he was 45 years old when he began reading the Bible. It was alien, illogical, unreasonable, and provoked great cognitive dissonance, so he argued with it for years while continuing to re-read it. After thirty years of some small hard-won understanding, it has become his foundation and metric standard in all matters.
-- . --
_____________________________ Contents of The Mechanics And Speed Section
-- . --
-- . -- (In preparation, let us remind ourselves of the uniqueness ( "Axiom 2") of the Universal Inception, because this "Mechanics And Speed" section may pull you from your comfortable world, and may stretch your mind.) The "Speed" of the expansion is of interest to scientists who are not familiar with this document. We will address their need, but current theory and the scientific standards demanded by this theory document make it difficult on multiple levels.
So we will tackle the problem with a new strategy. Let us now recall Corollary 3 of "Hypothesis 1" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) that states that the universe and space are geometrically-congruent, meaning that at every point where there is one, there is also the other. Therefore, the expansion was within nothing and encountered nothing. The expansion was only with respect to its origin, and you will see in a moment that even the origin was irrelevant. The expansion was uniform in all directions, which universally maintained the initially created homogeneity ( "UU") within the expanding body as explained in prior segments. Because that is so important, let us state it in another way: At this point before the expansion, nothing exists, not even space or gravity; nothing can interfere with the expansion that is preparing to take place, so there will not even be uncontrolled microscopic jiggling.
-- . --
-- . -- This UIM (Universal Inception Model) starts at the "Expansion Advent". Before that, we have no evidence for a source or cause of the outward movement that will now take place. If it were any of some other things, the UIM would function as presented, but let us consider "Hypothesis 4" of the "Universal Gravity Model" that gives us a cogent possibility. It presents the space concept without an explicit volume, which allows new topological possibilities. Without explicit volume of its own and not yet containing matter, space could be folded flat with perfection, thereby allowing the entire universe to exist without an expressed volume. With the flexibility of "Hypothesis 4" that allowed folding and superfluid behavior, "Hypothesis 3" also specifies extreme rigidity with respect to itself. Since the universe was folded into perfect flat folds, superfluidity-rigidity provided the source of universal impetus when released. ( The Simplification :
That hypothesis is suggesting that the compressive energy that was stored in folded space was released. When released, it became the expansive energy for the entire universe. ( Folding Sequence :
( Topological Controls :
( Energy :
-- . --
Spatial Curvature (Gravity) :
- Additionally at this time, when the preparation is nearly complete and we are preparing to release the "Initial Impetus", we find that some pieces are missing. Because we are working at such a low level, they seem at first glance to be philosophy problems, but their concept construction must be solved before we can discount or produce their reality. For example, nothing can exist until the universe has the ability to produce the "Entity" property uniformly across the entire universe. Any entity. And we have the same problem with the even more basic "dimension" property. Those fundamental properties are addressed later in the "Property Schemata" derivative of the following "Theory Derivatives" topic. ( The "Big Bang" :
-- . --
This tiny section of the "UIM" houses great concepts that are worthy of extensive consideration. We will, however, give them only a brief glance. We would, otherwise, be drawn into a complex tangential world of abstractions that would contribute little to our progress toward construction of the "UIM". With the model developed to this point, the "Temporal" location of the inception advent may now seem obvious. But it seems advisable to explicitly declare it to give the student an explicit conceptual delimiter for his intellectual stability. So let us make the advent a bold-faced postulate at this point in the current thread. (See also the previous "Methodology Scope" sub-section of the UIM's introduction, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) Postulate :
( Boundary Effect :
(
Conjecture :
-- . --
-- . -- The "Universal Gravity Model" 's "Hypothesis 3" with its corollaries was operational at the universal inception advent, so after the first spatial layer began outward expansion, the next layer immediately began expansion outward, and the next layer etc., until universal expansion was complete. And thus is shown the primary source of the phenomenal speed of the creation of the universe :
( Coherently :
Movement Impedance :
Universal Localization :
Matter And Energy :
An Illustration :
Postulate :
( Actual Duration :
Time:
Distance:
( Sequence Note
( Relativity :
( The "Insulated Compound Acceleration" is repeated in this document's appendices.)
-- . -- -- . --
_____________________________ You will see shortly how matter was distributed. When construction of this UIM (Universal Inception Model) began, there was a problem with the process producing a decreased mass density distribution toward the outside of the universe where space would have needed to expand laterally more than would the space of inner layers. However, since the discovery of the "Impetus Source" above, that is no longer a problem. The initial folding included all that was necessary, including greater lateral space in the outer layers; a solution that increases cogency of the new solution.
There were two major problems with the "Big Bang" that concerned scientists for many years.
Those problems are solved in the previous "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) "Support" segment; the first in its "Collapse Failure" sub-section, and the second in its "Expansion Failure" sub-section. ( Sequence Note
-- . --
________________________________ Cosmologists have not been able to understand how the early stars and galaxies appeared so quickly. A major part of the answer, as explained above, is that the creation of the universe, before stellar aggregation, happened faster than we could imagine. Some also doubt that fusion could have ignited in that early universe. This segment is the solution to those problems that derives from the preceding scenario. When the "Hydrogen Event" happened, the entire universe became a massive web of vanishingly tiny atoms that were linked by their gravity. Not much local gravity, but certainly enough to suffice for atomic-level masses, and that web of invisibly-small atoms contained the mass of the entire universe.
( For probable empirical verification of this phase of the UIM (Universal Inception Model), see the previous reference.) If the perfect order of the universe held every atom equidistantly, then aggregation would have failed, resulting in a failed and dark universe. But a few anomalies in the process had slightly disrupted the web enough to allow a few hydrogen atoms scattered across the universe to begin moving toward each other. Evidence of those disruptions can be seen today in the "CMB" map. That movement began to increase and spread disruption. ( Notice that we have changed from a "uniform" distribution to a "nearly uniform" distribution. But it remains, even today, uniform enough to have grabbed the attention of astronomers engaged in mapping the universe. So "UU" is still valid and operational for this theoretical construct.) No longer having an entirely uniform distribution, vast areas of the universe were free to begin aggregating the new hydrogen atoms. Initial acquisition would have been painfully slow, but wherever a few atoms began to move toward each other, they delicately urged an incomprehensibly-large number of atoms and mass in the web to acceleratively follow them. Thus, gravitational mass concentrated toward where the movement had started. At that time, the universe was almost entirely a thick soup of hydrogen atoms with little else to interfere with their movement. So the tendency was for those first aggregation movements to include the entire universe in a single entity. But there were a few limiting factors. For example, a mass that was many light years in diameter may have started collapsing on itself, but its movement could have been violently disrupted when its massive core became active. Such disruptions would have precipitated other aggregations. ( That may be considered an accurate description in principle of the general activity, but of course, the actual aggregation pattern mechanics would have been far more complex due to the universe's countless interacting spatial curvatures.) At this point in the process, astrophysicists are accustomed to today's gentle movement of a molecular cloud into a central stellar mass. That process is so gentle that it sometimes takes a million years for ignition of the new star. Therefore, to understand that process during universal inception, it is important to remember that stellar aggregation during this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) epoch was so violent and powerful that it pushed on the limits of reality; i.e., there was nothing gentle about it. It may have taken some time to get all of a mass moving, and those tiny atoms sometimes had to traverse great light year distances, but "slam together" is not an inappropriate description of the first star births, for "slam together", they did. Any atomic-level recalcitrance, as recently postulated by other theorists, would have been easily smashed out of existence as the first super-giant O-type stars abruptly terminated aggregation. ( The effects of the aggregation were not limited to stellar creation. Unusual particle physics in the universal inception is discussed in the "Nucleosynthesis" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic that follows this inception topic.) As they became active, those giants began their own disruption and influence on the universe, changing its complexion. Ignition of fusion in such a giant would have quickly created a super-nova, thereby irritating its locale to begin formation of the first galaxy around the remaining black hole. Similar events would have been taking place across the young universe. A problem of the uncontrolled ignition spread was noticed after this "Stellar Aggregation and Ignition" segment was developed and published. That construct suspends control and allows the disturbance spread to proceed randomly across the universe like a forest fire, which could have allowed stellar ignition to die out. (Which raised theoretical concerns in the mind of this theorist.) Then the Jan. 2020 issue of "Sky & Telescope" arrived with some of America's Spitzer telescope findings.
This model tells cosmologists how stars and galaxies appeared so quickly, which had been puzzling. The "Inception Duration" segment now shows why. To us, it appears that the stars turned on as soon as the expansion began. Which reveals why it has been so difficult to develop a valid model of universal inception. "Human terms" introduced anthropomorphism that warped science into something else. But we finally have the "Insulated Compound Acceleration" and other parts of the UIM to replace those human terms. The model also seems to support the current work of astronomers, and may provide the means to calculate frequency charts of actual star size and type with a detailed population morphology varying in relative spatial and "Temporal" topology. Those astronomers who seem to have found evidence of impossibly large stars in the early universe, now have the support of a cogent model in this UIM.
Notice also that the great voids in the universe, that were unexplainable, may now be explained.
-- . -- (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Aug 2018, p. 10
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Sep 2018, pp. 8-9, A study by Takuya Hashimoto of Osaka Sangyo University, et al reported evidence of stellar aggregation much earlier than was expected, which the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) predicts.) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Sep 2018, p. 10, "Too Many Massive Stars In Early Universe" by Monica Young Is explained by this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model).) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Mar, 2019, pp. 50-51. "At The Edge Of The Universe" by Jake Parks.
(*ref. Source: "Discover", Dec 2015, pp. 38-43, "The Archeology Of Stars" by Michael Lemonick:
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Jan. 2020, pp. 18-25, "Spitzer's Legacy":
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Sep 2020, p. 11, "Astronomers Find Rotating Disk In Early Universe", by Monica Young;
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov 2022, p. 9, "Where Did The Quasars Come From? by Monica Young)
-- . --
________________________________
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov, 2023, p. 10. "Dust At Cosmic Dawn" by Arwen Rimmer
(*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Sep, 2023, p. 26. "Too Big Too Soon" by Richard Talcott
-- . --
________________________________ ( Thread start.
A reading of all prior material in this document before reading this segment is recommended. -- . --
-- . -- -- . -- -- . --
As forewarned in the "Presentation Sequence" sub-section, this discussion of matter is necessarily out of sequence because it is placed on a logic thread that is separate from that of previous subjects. For example, the entire "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) was invalid until the following creation of matter took place and the previously presented "Hydrogen Event" and "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" could not take place until matter was created. Also, many separately reported events were actually taking place simultaneously at this "Temporal" location because they had to be placed on separate logic threads. A "Sequenced Event Table" is available in the "Summation Of Inception" segment soon after this "Matter Source" segment.
_____________________________ All of the matter and energy that is in the universe today was in the universe near the beginning. None has been created since then. We know that because it is uniformly distributed throughout the universe, which could have been achieved only by its creation at the beginning of spatial expansion. Additionally, no mechanisms have been detected producing the intense radiation and activity that would accompany the production of matter after the Cosmic Microwave Background ( "CMB") became visible. The CMB was left over from a large and energetic event shortly after the "Advent" of this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). We know that because the CMB that we see today is what would be left of hard gamma radiation that was red shifted by (~) thirteen billion years of universal expansion. But the "big bang" explosion has been replaced by an orderly expansion (Explained in the "Expansion" segment.), so that very early energetic event appears to have been the creation of the universe's matter.
Some Professional scientists who still "believe in" "Time" posit CMB appearance at slightly less than a half million years. But if inspected closely, the expansion "Mechanics" permit entirely discarding the time concept as an element of this discussion, and the actual, and unbelievable, duration is calculated in the "Inception Duration" section. The presence of matter was required universally to affect the precise de-ionization event, so matter was created at that "Temporal" location.
( Notice how that rapid series of "Temporally" close events on a universal scale provided the extreme "UU" Universal Uniformity.)
-- . --
_____________________________ This section presents the source of the universe's matter as a hypothesis. Do not be overly concerned if you have trouble wrapping your head around this section of this "UIM"(Universal Inception Model ). It roughly describes a uniquely strange event that can never happen again; i.e., the formation of the universe, including its physics, so it may not fit into your current reality structure. But it will come to you as you absorb these ideas. Hopefully, you arrived here after reading the preceding "UGM" (universal gravity model) and all of the preceding "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) sections. If you did not, there may be some problems. The following will describe blocks of space that are recursively populated with energy, matter, and CMB while expanding and moving, and then are popped into their relative locations in the young universe. Additionally, you may need to read the "Universal Energy" derivative before some things make sense, but postpone that, if possible, until you have arrived at the "Theory Derivatives" topic. -- . --
-- . -- The energy required was not the infinitesimally small bit of energy that the quantum physicists hypothesize is magically popping up and down out of nothing in the universe. As you will see in the next couple of paragraphs, an amount so great was required that it was worthy of stars and nuclear bombs, and it needed to remain extant indefinitely. In the following "Theory Derivatives" topic, you will encounter the "Energy Source" section of the "The Universal Energy" derivative. These tightly orchestrated events also tell us that energy was universally distributed with space during the inception. It appears to have been all of the energy that the universe would ever have.
-- . -- We know that the energy, in ergs E, that was needed to raise each matter wave, in grams M, was approximately ( This formula is presented in a bit more detail with its attendant problem in the "Formula Problem" appendix.) The centralized expenditure of that much energy at the high "Speed" of universal expansion might be expected to resemble the explosive "Chaos" of the old big bang model. But this new model's expansion was far faster than the old anthropocentric explosion, and its expansion was complete long before light could leave its local space. Also, every unit of space was still expanding before total expansion was done, so no radiation had time to exit its local space.
-- . -- Hypothesis :
-- . -- To attain its observed "Universal Uniformity", its creation allowed it to be dispersed by the uniform outward movement of newly created space; i.e., the super-fast expansion of space carried the potential matter within itself so that every bit of matter would have been entirely at rest in space while racing outwards as described by the "Insulated Compound Acceleration" concept. Therefore, the CMB that was produced, and energy remaining from matter production, were also carried along.
-- . -- The suggestion here is that matter was created at the "Quantum Physics" level. Additionally, we know from the characteristics of later events that it was created universally and uniformly due to the extreme "UU" (universal uniformity), so it was one of the triggered events mentioned in the "Hydrogen Event" section. Matter was not created as stars and planets, and not even as atoms. It was created as the smallest sub-atomic particles. As space expanded from the inception, it was accompanied by energy that was triggered by its usage to raise a wave in its local space at the "Planck Level". That action became a repetition as space continued expansion. Such quantum physics waves are known as wave forms in quantum mechanics, and these are specifically known as matter wave forms. Those wave forms are, by definition, "Solitons". The Ligo apparatus provides "Empirical" proof that space supports solitons, and that it can support their structural integrity indefinitely. That wave function was expressed universe-wide as "Sub-Atomic" particles that were carried outward within their expanding space. (Those sub-atomic particles would later supply the material for the "Hydrogen Event" atom formation.) Those sub-atomic particles could not permanently drop into Bose-Einstein condensates because the vast amount of energy being used in their construction elevated the universal temperature above the critical point. -- . -- Matter Source Summary :
So all of the universe's "Sub-Atomic" particles were created. Although they were the vanishingly small sub-atomic particles, they were all of the universe's matter, so they were closely packed. A large part were quarks and gluons. Those combined to form protons and neutrons. Since opposites attract, the positively charged protons and negative electrons were then forced by their opposite charges to combine to form the hydrogen atoms in the "Hydrogen Event" that would be used in the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" that was covered previously. ( For expansion of the particle physics topic in the universal inception, see the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic that follows this "UIM" topic.) ( If you are interested only in particle physics, and are not reading this physics theory in its entirety, you might also enjoy the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative, and the source, description, and usage sections of the "Universal Energy" derivative.)
-- . --
_____________________________ The following support does not alter the UIM. -- . --
Nearly a year after first publication of the UIM, the following "American Scientist" reference was published that directly supports the construct of the "UIM's" matter creation hypothesis. It points out that experiments with Europe's Large Hadron Accelerator treat the electron as fluid. Doctor Petrov also notes that quantum mechanics treats all sub-atomic particles as "fluid-like substances", which is consonant with their delivery by the UIM. It also appears that the UIM has thereby been given an expanded theoretical foundation in quantum mechanics. ( Also, see the "Physics Integration" derivative and the "Theoretical Support For Quantum Mechanics " derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic. ( For expansion of the subject of particle physics in the universal inception, see the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic that follows this "UIM" topic.) ( The author does not necessarily entirely support mainstream quantum mechanics theory at this time because he suspects that the probabilistic nature of empirical observations in quantum mechanics may have been overly influential in its theoretical construct. See the "Physics Integration" derivative and the "Theoretical Support For Quantum Mechanics" derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic.
(*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 107, Feb-Mar 2019, pp. 94-97, "What's In A Shape ?" by Prof. Alexey Petrov.)
-- . --
________________________________
The model building ended
_____________________________ There was no "Big Bang" explosion. We have proof of a massive sequential orderliness in an event that proceeded from nothing to today's complex universe. And that orderliness was a major factor in the creation of incredible complexity impossibly quickly. The development of the ordered universal expansion model explains many things, appears valid, and dispenses with the inadequacies of a puny anthropomorphic nuclear explosion. The following is the sequence of the events presented in the preceding "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) segments. Some items happened nearly simultaneously, such as events 7a and 7b, but the logically necessary causal chain is respected. You probably noticed while reading that 3 through 6 were "Temporally" extended and nearly simultaneous processes, whereas 7a through 7c took place suddenly across the universe.
( Also, see the "Temporal" topic discussion in the appendices.)
-- . --
_____________________________ The "Mechanics And Speed" section shows how "Insulated Compound Acceleration" attained an unbelievably high speed. But we humans feel a need to know that speed or duration as a comparable numeric value. The answer is so difficult to believe that consideration was given to leaving out this discussion in hopes that others would discover and be rediculed for it. After all, the expansion event involved the entire universe. 1. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has repeatedly been experimentally shown to be astoundingly uniform in temperature and frequency across the entire universe. (See the "Background Radiation" segment.) 2. That uniform temperature and frequency decay across the entire universe indicates that all parts of the CMB began existence nearly simultaneously. 3. The prime candidate for the production of the vast amounts of hard radiation for the CMB is the creation of all matter in the universe, as presented in the "Matter Source" segment. 4. The simultaneity of cooling needed for the observed simultaneity of the de-ionization event could be provided only if matter and the CMB were created in or near the expansion origin. 5. The distribution of that matter and CMB was made possible by the "Insulated Compound Acceleration" in the "Mechanics And Speed" section. 6. That distribution took place
7. The expansion was of the universe, so there was absolutely nothing to impede, alter, or impact it; not even gravity. And since everything was locally insulated from relativistic effects during the process, there was no speed limit.
8. Therefore, considering the magnitudes involved, the evidence in 1 through 7 indicates that, in human bean terms, creation and expansion of the entire universe up to "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition", was
so neither relative "Speed" nor "Temporal" duration can be ascribed to it with human meaning. The "nearly" qualifier is used because there may have been a slight hesitation for event marshaling at the start, and maybe a similar hesitation at the end. At that point, the "Insulated Compound Acceleration" was complete, and gravitational sources (e.g., atoms, stars, etc.) rapidly began to appear. (See the "Stellar Aggregation" segment.) The gravitational sources locked into each other, so the young universe rapidly decelerated until it was beyond the gravity lock and was expanding only with residual momentum. There are logic and linguistic entanglements in the "instantaneous" descriptor, but considering all of the caveats, constraints, and parameters within that context, there is no better way to communicate, in human terms, that which transpired. ( Relativity :
-- . --
_____________________________ The entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), which includes this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), seems to have empirical validation that is presented in the "Empirical Support" derivative of the following "Theory Derivatives" topic. (The "Incompleteness" theorem is presented as an ancillary matter in the appendices.) (The "Christian Comfort" appendix is presented ONLY for Christians as an ancillary matter in the appendices, and not as proof, but only to reveal a lack of conflict.)
-- . --
________________________________ -- . -- The "Inception Hypothesis" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was June 1, 2018. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 20180601. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, June 1, 2018 with revisions, or 20180601 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
-- . --
________________________________
The size and complexity of physics theory on this document is so great that this date table can no longer be maintained. Please refer to dates in each local subject header such as the above.
20180601 original publication. ( The "CoreDate" protocol is used for its self-sort, system friendliness, and other features.) -- . --
End of Universal Inception Model Topic.
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents. Contents Of Theory Derivatives
End of Derivatives Contents.
________________________________ Under construction. Changes are intuitively expected. Interesting miscellaneous topics appeared out of the development and analysis of the prior major topics. Movement of those emergent topics to this rubric, hopefully, simplifies the major topics and improves organization of the entire document. Sources Of Support :
-- . -- The entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) seems to have empirical validation that is presented in the "Empirical Support" derivative. -- . -- Lest you be led astray or waste your time : This work is very new. Large parts of the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) are at odds with theory that is currently accepted by most Professional scientists, so there is a strong possibility that the "UCM" will be rejected by that community. Furthermore, the author has no credentials. Having only a degree in sociology, he has no degree, publication, or recognition in theoretical physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, or other subjects addressed on this document.
-- . --
________________________________ The "UCM" is a universal model. Its constituents are :
Let us refer to it as the Universal Construct Model ("UCM"). ("Construct" is the noun form.) (20190513) Current contents of the "UCM" are neither immutable nor exclusive. More theory and experimental results are expected to demonstrably fall within it, especially as detail of the large categories. Empirical Support :
( Lest the author be elevated, the need for a new entity concept appeared during work on a derivative that needed to conceptually manipulate the totality to investigate a new relationship. And he was then surprised to realize that he had already unconsciously created the model and it needed only a concept name and definition for completion : ergo, this "UCM".)
-- . --
________________________________ Contents Of "UCM" Empirical Support
_____________________________
-- . -- Relativity :
Background :
"Empiricism" :
(( Dedication :
-- . --
-- . -- This "definition logic" is already known by scientists, and is intended for those who have little or no scientific training. We are addressing two logical domains in physics, each of which is independent, but each of which impacts the other;
Therefore, the purpose of this "Empirical Support" segment is to present what seems to be empirical validation of the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), which is presented on this document, and that which seems to be the UCM's theoretical support for recent research findings. If successful, it will make a logical link between the two that supports both. A major reason for seeking such support is that it creates an easily-handled logical construct of the entire subject. That then encourages conceptual inspection and manipulation of the entire construct. It may reveal new research areas, may encourage theory extension, and may reveal weaknesses and problem areas. Although it may not seem so, it is actually a simplification method. If it works in this case, then the empirical scientists and the theorists can conceptually hold the universe in their hands to inspect their work.
-- . --
-- . -- Something has been disrupting cosmology metrology. For several generations, scientists have been measuring the size, age, and expansion rate of the universe. Something inexplicable has been disrupting their work, and as their methods and instruments have improved, the situation has worsened. Their various methods have been unable to return results that agree, and are sometimes entirely unbelievable. Unknown to the general public, that illogical situation was so stressful for those scientists that some began to manifest stress symptoms. Understandable, since this was not only a personal and professional problem for them, it also suggested a problem for universal reality. Various empirical methods of measuring the size and age of the universe were returning illogical, impossible, contradictory, and inconsistent values. The studies were presenting an unknown and illogical universe. It appeared that all that we knew, including even the entire field of the sciences, might be in danger of collapse or refutation. Every working group demonstrated sound theory and a high degree of scientific confidence and accuracy in its work. But their various measurements of the universe :
For detailed descriptions of the problem presented by Professional science writers, see the references in the following "references" sub-section. Multiple competing publications are referenced.
-- . --
-- . -- The new "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) that is presented on this document provides, in its entirety, a theoretical model that appears to solve the specified problem. The composite "UCM" contains several explanations of how the problems are generated. Two are conjectures, and the other is a theory. They are independent, and one or more may be valid. They are covered in the following "Spatial Expansion" section. Observations and the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) are so closely consonant that it currently appears that the observations, including the illogical, impossible, conflicting, and inconsistent measured values, validate the "UCM". Conversely, it appears that the "UCM" predicted and described a dynamic reality in which the scientific observations of the universe were correct. Even the conflicts were correct, because changing spatial volume and distribution have been altering the universe's topology in a manner that was unexpected and unknowable, and therefore impossible to account for until now. The "UCM" supports our hard working scientists and points to new fields of study. Therefore, it appears that the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) may have been entirely validated by recent publication of those experimental results.
-- . --
-- . -- The following references are to descriptions of the measurement problem. Although covering the same topic, they are by different writers and editors in four respected periodical publications, so they offer different perspectives, coverages, and editorial styles.
( A salute to all the writers and editors of the above referenced publications for making the complicated subject understandable by the common man.) ( Highest accolades to the many scientists involved in the research who doggedly pursued valid empirical science without compromise in the face of the impossible. Such were those men who built and led western civilization.)
-- . --
_____________________________
-- . -- Spatial expansion, as presented in the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) is not strictly an expansion of existing space. This important point is covered in more detail in the "Spatial Expansion" section of the "Dark Energy" derivative. With that understood, for simplicity and convenience we may continue to address the process as though it is an expansion of existing space. But it is certainly an expansion of the universe. The "Theory" and "Conjecture" sub-sections show points where scientists' empirical investigations seem to be in consonance with the "Dark Energy" derivative. It thereby gives theoretical support to investigations, and the investigations thereby validate the theory. You will find that that derivative draws upon other derivatives for support, thereby validating them.
-- . --
-- . -- Notice in each of the following that there is massive latent spatial and "temporal" inconsistency in each process that could be differentially manifested across various metrological methods. Inconsistent, not because of erroneous methods, but because the processes do not follow expected and consistent patterns. To increase confusion even more, the inconsistencies vary between the spatial group and the temporal group. This will be expanded in the next section, "Process Inconsistencies" (See *ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Jan. 2020, pp. 18-25, "Spitzer's Legacy": Note the sporadic rate of universal star formation shown by the graph in the early universe, even threatening cessation 12 billion years ago, which is consonant with the "UCM". That publication support was received months after the previous paragraph was published.)
-- . --
-- . -- In addition to the conjectures, the "Stellar Activity Theory" section of the "Dark Energy" derivative presents causes of the behavior that has been called "Dark Energy". If correct, then that process continuously alters the spatial topology of the universe in a non-linear manner, which produces errors in cosmology metrology. The "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative indicates that that process exerts a massive impact on the universe and the "Dark Energy" derivative reveals that it has been operational since "Stellar Ignition".
-- . --
-- . -- The "Conjectures" section of the "Dark Energy" derivative present two of the proposed causes of the activity that has been called "Dark Energy". (The other is the preceding theory sub-section.) If those conjectures are correct, a secondary effect of that activity will have been to make scientific observations appear to be impossibly erroneous. Also, various factors in the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) will make it difficult to detect and pinpoint the causes of the errors without being familiar with this "UCM".
-- . --
_____________________________
-- . -- The "Sky & Telescope" description in the "References" sub-section explicitly comments that "...space is expanding", because that is certainly its appearance in toto. In actuality, space is not expanding, but even stranger, it is increasing, thereby causing expansion in the universe, which is the thesis of the "Dark Energy" derivative. To increase confusion, its expansion has been "temporally" and spatially dynamic across billions of years; i.e., even the change was changing while scientists tried to measure it. The "UCM"(Universal Construct Model) reveals that the various measurements being compared were not always measuring the same things. In any case, it is causing expansion of the universe per "Corollary 3 of Hypothesis 1" of the "UGM" (universal gravity model). ( Although faster now, the expansion is still slow in the "UCM" and in actual measurements, relative to the universe's size.
-- . --
-- . -- If the size of the universe were plotted with "temporal" values on a graph, we would see its size rise from the inception until now. We would say that it has a positive gradient. You will recall how the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) part of the "UCM" demonstrates that some of the space in the universe, although extant, was not immediately manifested in the early "temporal" neighborhood. Those who were measuring there would see a different universe that was far smaller, exhibited little or no expansion, and that forecasted little or no expansion in today's universe. Anybody who analyzed the universe of that period before having the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and then extrapolated to today, would find that their analysis made no sense, which is what was happening to some scientists. The behavior and morphological characteristics of the early universe and today's universe are very different. The space was there, but much of it was not manifested as such. That latent part of it was tied up in matter as explained in the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM". It began slowly manifesting shortly after the "Stellar Aggregation" event, the event that allowed stellar ignition.
That problematic space began manifesting as explained in the "Stellar Activity Theory" section of the "Dark Energy" derivative. It has continued for the life of the universe, thereby causing expansion forecasts based upon metrology of the early universe to fall short of actual measurements in today's universe.
-- . --
-- . -- Notice that the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) allowed random distributions in the spatial and temporal patterns of stellar ignition, thereby introducing a disruptive signal into the curve's gradient. That particular signal of disruption would later be lost in the activity of a larger population, but the early random spread of the activity could have, and probably did, manifest a varying amount of spatial activity. Considering the huge amount of matter available, and the directionally-uncontrolled spread of activity, the magnitude variation of that activity could have been great.
If the "Conjectures" of the "Dark Energy" derivative are valid, then they posit the possibility of even greater metrological anomalies that arise in that activity because they come from a population that is smaller than the stellar population, and each of them exhibits greater activity variances than does the stellar population. If the conjectures are valid, then they introduced their own confusing disruption into the gradient. It is possible that available data are confused by other factors that are lost in the sheer size of this "UCM" model. For example, if the tentative conjecture "Geometry Closure" of the "Black Hole" derivative is correct, then some event evidence is missing from the universe. It might be possible, but extremely difficult at this time, to account for that missing evidence.
-- . -- -- . -- Measurements that start in the early universe find a smaller universe than is found by measurements that start in the local universe. Additionally, that size disparity between expected and actual is greater than that projected by the upward gradient of the expansion graph. That insane situation is actually predicted by the "UCM" model of the universe, but it was driving our scientists to distraction, because they were working under the classical cosmology model of the universe. Stellar Activity :
Black Hole Activity :
Latent Pressure-Front :
-- . -- (
-- . --
_____________________________ The following is a technique that was developed and used by this logician-theorist. If it is found to be useful by other than this theorist, it is offered for use by scientists and technologists without charge.
The author has sometimes found it useful to think of a research matter as a signal stream. In his theoretical work in computer science, he found it helpful to conceptualize data as a signal even when it was merely setting on a storage device. That signal can traverse temporal, spatial, and conceptual chasms without remark. ( Actually, he conceptually cast all of reality as a signal stream so that data, storage devices, computers, error sources, etc. were signal streams feeding the trunk signal that was the giant distributed computer system. He would have been otherwise incapable of maintaining control of the development of the great "AxleBase" computer system. The signal analogy became part of the system design. For example, an anomalous event or failure in the thousands of components, systems, computers, networks, etc. was simply a signal that was automatically traced by the system to its source for correction.) If the researcher uses that technique here, then the complexity of the many-faceted expansion of the universe may become an amalgamation of many signals into the single observed trunk signal, which may simplify the conceptual investigation of the confusingly varying primary signal that we observe. Looked at in reverse, today's universe is an expression of that trunk signal. If that works for you, then the subject that varies across billions of years, billions of parsecs, and many complex variables will remain complex, but should be amenable to manipulation, simple separation, and discrete presentation in various formats. For example, the difference between two temporally adjacent spatial topologies might be understood by tracing and inspecting the way the component signals have changed. ( A Project :
-- . --
_____________________________ The components of the "UCM" are now briefly addressed for their contribution to the theory and to the experimental construct of the Support derivative.
The "Theory Derivatives" are sufficiently interconnected within each and within the entire "UCM" that empirical support of any derivative usually requires the logical support of others.
-- . -- The physics derivatives are based upon the validity of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). For example, the "Matter Source" segment of the UIM presents the source of "Sub-Atomic" matter. That unique source formed matter in a manner that permitted the physics derivatives. The current UIM architecture is a coherent logical whole. Maybe it can be reconstructed, but as it is now, the validation of part of it neatly validates most or all of it. Therefore, the validated derivatives thereby validate the UIM.
-- . -- The "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) provides support for the validated UIM such as in "The Expansion Problems' Solution" segment, and the Universal Gravity Model validates or supports some derivatives such as the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" derivatives. Therefore, the Universal Gravity Model is thereby validated.
-- . -- The "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) components are :
With its components validated, the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) is thereby validated. ( No logic failure due to circularity between the various parts has been detected, but the project is so large and complex that a deliberate search for circularity as an organized project needs to be done as time permits.
-- . --
________________________________ This derivative addresses the outright destruction of the matter wave form "Soliton". Of great interest is the amount of space that is released by that action. (The amount of energy is already assumed.) Its need is logically generated by hypotheses and theory in this "Theory Derivatives" topic. ( This does not address the various transmutations or partial destruction of matter wave forms, because that would require great knowledge of particle physics far beyond this author's education, and because it would generate a ponderous document many times the size of this one.) The "Matter Source" hypothesis in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) proposes the creation at the "Sub-Atomic" level of all matter by events with an energy of E = Energy in ergs. M = Mass in grams. C = A constant. (See also the "Relativity Problem" appendix, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) The amount of space that went into the matter with the energy is currently unknown. It might be a cubic inch or a cubic mile; we just do not know. So until smarter and better-educated people feel inclined to address that question, let us make a guess so we can move on and to at least get a feel for the quantities involved. We have three strong indicators to get us started. 1. Energy Formula :
2. Derivatives :
3. UIM Construct Support :
Summation :
The following is submitted to allow us to move on until smarter and better educated minds prevail.
Hypothesis : S is cubic kilometers, M is grams of mass, and C is a constant value of 4.1655. ( See the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM".) ( Potential Adjustment of the constant is addressed in the Matter Collapse Theory section of the "Dark Energy" derivative. ( Interesting Note :
-- . --
________________________________ Contents Of this Nascent Nucleosynthesis Derivative
-- . -- Welcome to particle physics alchemy. This derivative is not about general nucleosynthesis, but is specifically about the First Nucleosynthesis. That distinction is made because the cause, location, and extent of the first process caused a major alteration in the nature and operation of the universe. The specificity is so important to our general understanding of cosmological matters that this logician would like to have a distinct term for it to make of it a sub-category of general nucleosynthesis, but has been unable to think of an adequate name for it. So let us proceed for the moment with the rather clunky "Nascent Nucleosynthesis".
Beginners :
-- . -- -- . -- The source of all of the universe's matter was addressed in the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). It was created as "Sub-Atomic" particles such as quarks, gluons, and electrons. After cooling, those sub-atomic particles combined to form atoms, as explained in the "Hydrogen Event" section. Although it was in atomic form, all of the matter that the universe would ever have, existed at that point. But nearly all of it was in the form of hydrogen atoms, which was great for forming and igniting stars, but there were no other elements for forming skyscrapers and peanuts, which brings us to the subject of the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis".
That appearance of matter began "Warping" space throughout the universe, thereby forcing the universe's "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition". The action and results of this "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative are based upon and forced by that powerful physical activity that is described in the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" segment. ( You might want to review that "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) at this point. That may give you a feel for the primary physical activity in that segment to help you understand the following proposal.)
-- . -- -- . -- Metals are a product of fusion in stars and super novae, but a very large quantity of heavy elements may have been delivered very early during the inception by the following nucleosynthesis process. Spatial Location :
"Temporal" Location :
Cosmologists and astrophysicists are accustomed to today's gently swirling collapse of a molecular hydrogen cloud to become a massive body, thereby creating a star in or near a million years. But take another look at the same event in the nascent universe as presented in the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" segment. That entire era was of high energy with little gentleness about it. Much of the early universe became highly vectored stellar masses that were, each, dispersed at the atomic level. Those atoms had little or no interference as they acceleratively drilled through light years of space toward each other to coalesce at central loci. Hypothesis :
See that physical activity described in the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" segment. It was nearly identical to the activity in the Large Hadron Accelerator laboratory at Cern, except that this "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) process worked on a universe-scale creating new elements in stellar quantities. The "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" process delivered great impact velocities that produced nano-second collisions within tiny "Temporal" and spatial volumes. The varieties of elements produced were determined by energy differences in the projectiles and by target configuration differences between particle mutation events.
Some Support Already :
( The Writer's Shortcomings :
-- . -- -- . -- This section contains a few miscellaneous subjects. -- . -- The nucleosynthesis did not disrupt the basic activity that was covered in the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" segment. But it did increase activity complexity during that period, because the alteration of matter (Nascent Nucleosynthesis) was happening concurrently with the accumulations of stellar masses. Additionally, Nascent Nucleosynthesis activity may give a more detailed description of the stellar ignition.
-- . -- If you are interested only in particle physics, or in quantum mechanics, and are not reading the entirety of this physics theory document, then you might also enjoy the source, description, and usage sections of the "Universal Energy" derivative, and the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model).) For quantum mechanics, see the "Quantum Mechanics Support" derivative and the "Physics Integration" derivative.
-- . -- Notice that the "UU" (universal uniformity) that was important to the "UIM" was disrupted prior to this nucleosynthesis event, and that disruption allowed the gamut of the particle physicist's tools to participate in this process. That also entirely disrupted the spatial distribution of the metals. Since the spread of stellar activity across the universe was uncontrolled, some areas of the universe might have even had a dearth of metals as demonstrated by America's Spitzer Telescope. A significance of that chaotic distribution is also discussed in the "Stellar Aggregation" segment. -- . -- Notice that the products of this process may include the very heavy metals, which have been problematic for particle physics. The processing of a single atom could have been limited to a single collision, or may have involved any number of sequential near-light-speed collisions. Note also, that the local environment could have quickly attained the very high processing temperature that precipitated stellar ignition.
-- . -- If the inception somehow included the production of antimatter, as some theorists have believed, then this process offers the means by which it might have been defused and assimilated without universal self-destruction. ( However, with limited attention to particle physics, this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) has neither need nor cause for antimatter.)
-- . -- -- . -- The earliest stars that did not explode as they aged should still be extant and operating at a low level in their maturity. Before this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), astrophysicists expected to identify them by their paucity of heavy metals, but the astrophysicists have been searching for them with little success. Two or three candidates may have been identified in our galaxy, but even they are questionable. This "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative may reveal the source and solution of their problem. If correct, then its process will have erased that evidence by immediately polluting the early stars with heavy metals during universal inception even before the stars ignited. Making matters even more confusing for the scientist will be the randomness of the process pollution as mentioned in the "Chaos Insertion" sub-section.
If that source problem is correct, then maybe there is a way to overcome it, and possibly make of it an asset :
-- . -- -- . -- -- . -- Tentative "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Oct 2023, p. 17, "The Far Stuff Is Made Of Star Stuff" by professional astronomers Dan Coe and Rebecca Larson.) The introduction of the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) into science's tool box has generated a surpising amount of support for the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) on this document. The above reference states, "One of the holy grails of JWST is to discover the very first pristine stars and galaxies composed of only hydrogen and helium. We have yet to find them. We find heavy elements in place as early as 430 million years after the inception's "Advent" in the galaxy GN-z11. Its spectrum reveals at least six elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, neon, magnesium, and nitrogen - were already plentiful in GN-z11." (See earlier references to GN-z11 below.) (Note: the descredited "Big Bang" term was replaced by the "Advent" in the quote.) That is exactly as predicted by this "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative. This derivative also predicts varying element mixes across the universe. ( Please note that the galaxy GN-z11 has been revealing support for this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) on this document for the past several years. Run a search for its name in this document.)
-- . -- Tentative "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" "Sky & Telescope" reports the detection of carbon at only 420 million "years" after the inception "Advent". That carbon had to have been synthesized in an earlier star that had exploded possibly millions of years earlier than the detection, and the elements needed for that earlier synthesis had to have been synthesized in other stars, possibly millions of years before that. Thus, that carbon detection pushes the frontier of empirical science millions of years farther back toward the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), while continuing to support this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Apr 2021, p. 7, "Most Distant Gamma-Ray Burst Found" abstracted from "Nature Astronomy" by Arwen Rimmer.)
-- . -- This sub-section presents probable "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" There seems to be a trend: Technology continues to move our "Empirical" observation limit farther back toward the inception "Advent". That trend is so definite that it is no longer interesting, but of great interest is the fact that every decrement seems to maintain a high correlation between "Empirical" observations and this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). The above reference by Arwen Rimmer reports on a Gamma-Ray Burst. Perhaps more interestingly, that GRB happened in GN-z11, an entire galaxy of stars at only 420 million years after the universal inception's "Advent". The first reference below reports on 8 studies published in the November 2020 issue of "Astronomy And Astrophysics". One study observed 118 very young galaxies. The observation that they are "Surprisingly Mature" was made because they contain far more metals and metal-sourced dust than was expected before publication of this "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative. The second reference below reports a finding by Feige Wang and associates of a massive 1.6 "Gigasol" black hole only 670 million years after the universal advent in galaxy GN-z11. They are puzzled by the existence of such a massive black hole that close to the inception advent because they do not seem to be aware of this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) despite their finding being additional support for it. ( That second reference below also makes this logician feel easier about the astounding and far fetched conjectures that arose in the "Aggremmass" anomaly.) The third reference reports Weida Hu and coworkers observing an entire cluster of 21 galaxies only 770 million years after the universal advent. The cluster is designated LAGERz70D1. (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Apr 2021, p. 11, "Surprisingly Mature Infant Galaxies" abstracted from "Astronomy And Astrophysics" by Monica Young.) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", May 2021, p. 10, "The Most Distant Quasar And Black Hole Birth" abstracted from "Astrophysical Journal letters" by Monica Young.) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov 2022, p. 9, "Where Did The Quasars Come From? by Monica Young)
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", May 2021, p. 10, "Astronomers Spot Galaxies Clustering In Early Universe" abstracted from "Nature Astronomy" by Govert Shilling.)
-- . -- Possible "Empirical" Support Of The "UCM" Using our local unremarkable star as a universal indicator, we find that, although it has operated for billions of years, ~98% of it is still hydrogen and helium and less than ~2% is heavier elements, and most of that ~2% probably came from stars that exploded long before Sol formed. Sol's dearth of heavy elements is indicative of some validity for this "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative. (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Apr 2021, p. 12, "How Well Do We Know The Sun ?" by Colin Stuart. )
-- . --
________________________________ ( Familiarity with the preceding "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) and "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) may be necessary for understanding this derivative.) -- . -- Impact Of The UIM:
Matter Introduction:
Matter Organization:
Universal Cooling And De-ionization:
The Universal Environment State:
Energy Availability:
The preceding presents parts of the
"UCM"
Search For The Trigger:
Spatial Curvature:
Mass Accumulation:
The New Universal State:
The Universe-Sized Dynamo:
universal magnetogenesis. Although this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) theory is far different from the "standard" physics model, this UCM derivative was prompted by Prof. Garrison's paper in "Sky & Telescope" referenced below.
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Sept. 2021, pp 22-27, "The First 10 Seconds" by Prof. David Garrison, University Of Houston-Clear Lake.) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Dec. 2021, p.6, Letter from R. Carlson.)
-- . --
________________________________ The "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) posits additional complicating factors within stars that might require attention. Our traditional way of thinking about matter and energy is that portrayed by the The "Basic Materials' Relations" segment reminds us that matter is a combination of space and energy. Matter was raised from space as a matter wave form at the "sub-atomic" level. It is a soliton. When that wave, soliton, is collapsed, as happens in "Nuclear Devices", that collapse releases its constituent space and the energy that raised it. The massive "Nuclear Devices" called stars continually collapse matter wave forms. We detect and study the energy that is thereby released, but is the space that is released also affecting the star ? For example, when fusion shuts down, the lack of energy production can contribute to a nova by allowing the star to collapse, but if the star was also being supported by a continual internal release of space, then cessation of that process would contribute to the pre-nova collapse. The traditional mechanism that generated a nova has been the star collapsing on itself and bouncing back out explosively. Let us now consider the possibility that that collapse also releases a greater than usual amount of space from matter wave forms to contribute to the violence of the rebound event. -- Supernovae -- At the time of this writing, computerized stellar models have been unable to get a supernova to explode. At all. (See the 2020 Special Edition of Astronomy, pp. 50-55, "Supernova 1987A 30 Years Later", by Liz Kruesi) The suggestion here is that they will explode satisfactorily when the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) is accounted for in the stellar model. Cessation of its usual nuclear activity will stop the normal production of space within the star, causing an abrupt and catastrophic collapse of that vast mass onto the iron core that it produced. The collapse of that super-giant onto the core will explosively release vast amounts of space within itself in addition to the raw energy that is released to provide a satisfyingly well-behaved supernova. (See the "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative.)
-- . --
________________________________ This derivative is being developed to investigate the possible impact of its component objects on the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) or the "UIM" environment. The extreme conceptual deviation of those objects from the normative internal characteristics of the model and its components suggests a possibility of some impact.
Contents Of this Neutron Star Derivative
-- . --
-- . -- The neutron star phenomenon was discovered near the turn of the millennium. Subsequent research has produced numerous reports through the years written for the layman. Neutron stars are tiny and dark, so they are nearly invisible in our universe. But if this is your first encounter with them, prepare to be awed. This writer believes that the neutron star will eventually provide important fundamental information about the universe just because its abstract logical location within the conceptual universe-construct is so unusual that it is nearly a reality-deviant.
-- . -- -- . -- Caution:
Predictive Theory:
Source:
The result of that combination is a particle called a neutron because it has a neutral electric charge. The nova event forms neutrons in vast numbers that are immediately coalesced and colapsed by the extraordinary gravity of the litle star, thereby creating a tiny neutron star. Because there is not enough gravity to collapse into a "Black Hole" or an "Aggremmass", the collapse stops there. So neutron stars are created by the supernovae of giant stars that are between 8 and 100 "Sols". In that explosion, the progenitor star's outer layers are blown off and its core collapses into a neutron star. ref(4) Nuclear Activity:
Neutron Star Core:
Magnetic Field:
Size and Mass:
Physical Structure:
Spin:
Radiation:
-- . --
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-- . -- -- . -- Magnetic Field:
The Magnetar Monster:
One theory is that magnetars are created in sources where the core is spinning at least once every 10 milliseconds ref(4). That causes the magnetic fields to become highly twisted during transfer to the magnetar, thereby creating super strong magnetism in the new star. It now appears that the magnetic field of a neuton star is composed of multiple component magnetic fields. Those component magnetic fields of a neutron star are, each, a coherent entity that extends through the star, and out into space on the other side to loop back to itself. That field is fixed in place by the star's rigid crust. Chaos sometimes arises in a neutron star's magnetic field, which produces a violent electrical storm that escapes into intergalactic space. The magnetic field in a magnetar is so powerful that a single little magnetar's electrical storm sometimes rages across the vastness of much of the universe. Disruption of that field, which passes through the star, can also create a starquake in the star's rigid crust and core, thereby releasing more energy. The strongest explosions in the entire universe come from neutron stars. See the postulate in the "Invitation Interjection" Fortunately, most magnetars are located far away from us, but SGR1806-20, which is only 50,000 light years (294*(10^15) miles or 294 quadrillion miles) away, produced a gamma ray burst in 2004 that released as much energy in a tenth of a second as the sun emits in 150,000 years, and a thousand times greater than ordinary neutron stars. And fortunately, that burst was not aimed directly at the Earth. Small and dark magnetars are invisible to visible-light telescopes, but their violent storms allow their study across the universe. Maybe because their characteristics are balanced on a knife-edge, magnetar lifetimes seem to be no longer than 10,000 years. ref(3) -- . -- -- . -- If you are one of those who understood enough to be awed by the magnitar, hold onto your seat. Although coming from an object no bigger than a city, the fast radio burst, FRB, now appears to be the most powerful event in the entire universe; being even more powerful than a supernova. (The primary source for this information was ref(3)) FRB's were unknown in the last century; discovered by a student at West Virginia University, David Narkevic, who was studying archived data that had been discounted by professional scientists. The signal that he discovered had been rejected because it was unbelievably strong. From a source 3 billion light years away, far across the universe, it was only 5 milliseconds long, but had as much power as our sun releases in days. Additionally, it was found that another source, FRB121102A, was repeating its signals, and other sources were discovered repeating their signals. That indicated that, unlike other powerful events such as super novae, the FRB creation, despite its power, was not destroying its source. It is beginning to appear that little magnetars are the sources of the powerful FRB's. However, it is not yet certain that the magnetar is the only source. An additional benefit of the powerful FRB is its distance which supports the study of the intervening environments. For example, scientists are actually studying the temperature of intergalactic gas, which was impossible before. And more radio telescopes are rapidly coming on line. In addition to existing arrays, large arrays of radio telescopes to study FRB's are in hurried construction. reference ref(12). For example, the DSA (Deep Synoptic Array) going up in Nevada, will have over 2,000 fiber-linked and steerable radio dishes. A smaller array, designated as DSA-110 is being raised in California, and may be on-line by now. A minor bit of information that greatly moves this theorist-theorist is that the Nevada array is expected to record dozens of FRB's every day. This theorist suspects that FRB studies may greatly alter our understanding of the universe.
-- . -- -- . -- Greg Bryant presented an excellent description of Wolf-Rayet stars in reference number ref(5). Following is a table of some of their salient features. Note that their strangness and importance are produced in an unusual progenitor stellar object, and the two phases of that life cycle are separated by a super-nova. Conditions in these stars appear to be unstable, so that the following features may vary somewhat in the Wolf-Rayets and in their progenitors. For example, life spans in some may be as low as a hundred thousand years. Wolf-Rayete Star Features
-- . -- -- . -- Apologea :
This logician-theorist has been considering for several years the possibility of a Wolf-Rayet Star interacting with our solar system. The Wolf-Rayet characteristics give it a higher probability of local interaction than have other celestial objects because its behavioral affect has a long range impact of many light years. (See the "Wolf-Rayete Features" table in the prior section.) Every time that this one reads the book of "Revelation" (about 3.5 times anually), he is struck by how much of "Revelation's" mayhem could be done by one of the many rogue Wolf-Rayets that slowly drift throughout our galaxy. Wolf-Rayets are so extreme in all characteristics that, if one did interact in any way with a local body, the results would be catastrophic. All of which caused an announcement on the local radio to grab the attention of this logician-theorist this evening. (20230915) Event :
( The event discovered by Dr. Collins and recast here by this theorist, is, of course, God's destruction of Sodom that was recorded in the "Bible".) He has found that the exterior of all pottery that was exposed to the sky throughout the entire region became so hot that it melted, giving it a glass covering, as found in the Hiroshima blast. But the Sodom event's duration was only a microsecond or less. (For comparison, see the GRB(Gamma Ray Burst) identified as "SGR1806-20", which came from 50,000 light years away.) Conjectured Cause :
Inordinate Extremities
-- . -- -- . -- ( Affects on the universe of the interaction of the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) with the "Neutron Stars" derivative phenomenon.) As mentioned in their, "Features Table", "Wolf-Rayet" stars produce a significant amount of the entire universe's dust, despite their rarity and their small size. So it was of great interest to some of us when the announcement was made of the discovery of organic molecules in the dust of that Wolf-Rayet star, WR140. ref(6) Those molecules are specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. To ease communication for the next few minutes, let us abbreviate them as PAH molecules. Significance Of The PAH Name:
Location:
Venue Insulation:
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Feb. 2023, p. 10, "Ripple Effect", Extracted from the 12 October issue of "Nature Astronomy" by Monica Young)
Impact Of The "UIM"(Universal Inception Model) On Stellar synthesis:
Hypothesis A:
Hypothesis B:
See also the following Invitation Interjection sub-section which offers more fun.
-- . -- -- . -- Since it began operation, the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) has been delivering support for the various details of the "UCM" on this document, while destroying legacy cosmology. One of those details is the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecules of the previous "Biophysics" section. The Witstok study, referenced below, used JWST to survey 253 galaxies located in the first few million years of the universe. Light from 10 of them was combined to study their spectra, which revealed the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
"Empirical" Support Of The "UIM" :
"Empirical" Support Of The "UIM" :
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov, 2023, p. 10. "Dust At Cosmic Dawn" by Arwen Rimmer
(*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Sep, 2023, p. 26. "Too Big Too Soon" by Richard Talcott)
-- . -- -- . -- Appologia :
Before you become concerned for this logician-theorist, know that he is well aware that the presentation of his theology work on other documents may alienate those who, otherwise, might have recognized his work, not because he allows it to corrupt his science, but because it pushes on their superstitions and prejudices. But as in this case, there are valid and interesting relations that may be of interest to scientists.
There are a number of places on this web site where there seem to be demonstrations of our Creator's intent to lead us into greater knowledge, and this may be one of them. (See "Christian Comfort" ) We are not deterred by the pronouncements of my fellow Christians, but we sometimes run into interesting, but seemingly impossible problems for our meager intellects, and this may be such. The giant DNA and RNA molecules are so complex in structure and function, and structurally so delicate, that there has seemed to be no possible way to ever logically explain their origin to the satisfaction of those of us who insist on "Empiricism" and pure logical truth. We may now have it. Not the explanation, but a sincere hint of a possibility that is presented by the natural universe. As a theoretical scientist and a believer in the Creator who loves us, this one is ecstatic, and wants to share the fun. If you enjoy science, and especially if you are a scientist working in organic chemistry or biology, please see hypotheses "A" and "B" in the previous "Biophysics Hypotheses" section.
( Weirdos : If you figure out a way to contact me, be aware now that for most of my life, I have been astounded by the stupidity of searchers for ET. So do not. I have been trying for nearly forty years to control my temper and stop cussing about the stupidity of people who think that they are not, such as "Democrats, Socialists" and searchers for ET)
-- . -- -- . -- (1) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", vol 50 issue 9 Sept. 2022, pp 16-23, "Celebrity Stars" by Randall Hyman) (2) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Oct. 2021, pp 40-47, "Neutron Stars: A Cosmic Gold Mine" by Caitlyn Buongiorno) (3) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Sept. 2022, pp 26-31, "Fast Radio Bursts Hit Prime Time" by Shivani Bhandari) (4) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Dec. 2021, pp 30-35, "The Short, Violent Lives Of Magnetars" by Matthew R. Francis) (5) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Feb. 2023, pp 13-17, "Wolf Rayet Stars" by Greg Bryant) (6) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Feb. 2023, p 10, "Ripple Effect" Extracted from the 12 October issue of "Nature Astronomy" by Monica Young) (7) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Feb. 2023, p 11, "Brightest Gamma Ray Burst Yet" by Jure Japel) (8) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Feb. 2023, p 9, "New Observations Add Fuel To Fast Radio Burst Debate" by Benjamin Skuse) (9) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Apr. 2023, p 10, "Gamma Ray Burst Surprise" by Monica Young) (10) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Dec. 2022, p 9, "Black Widow Pulsar Sets Mass Record" by Govert Schilling) (11) (*ref. Source: "Discover", Dec 2015, pp. 38-43, "The Archeology Of Stars" by Michael Lemonick:
(12) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Sep. 2023, pp 14-19, "DSA-2000 Mining The Radio Sky" by Govert Schilling) (13) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Aug. 2023, pp 8-9, "The Brightest Gamma Ray Burst May Have Been A Supernova" (GRB 221009A) by David Chandler)
(14) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Sep, 2023, p. 26. "Too Big Too Soon" by Richard Talcott)
(15) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov, 2023, p. 10. "Dust At Cosmic Dawn" by Arwen Rimmer
Derivative started August of 2022.
-- . --
________________________________ Contents Of this Black Hole Construct Derivative
End Of Black Hole Derivative Table Of Contents -- . -- John Michell used only Newton's mechanics to hypothesize black holes in 1783, long before Einstein was born. He even calculated the size of the event horizon. It is easy to understand why his extreme idea is hardly remembered; he was too far ahead of his time and, apparently, not much of a showman. A century or so later, others hypothesized black holes based upon Einstein's work, and that second time, the idea gained some traction.
Nuclear physicists have demonstrated that matter usually comes together as mass with much space in it. At the atomic level, for example, the spatial volume in an atom is hundreds of thousands times greater than the volume of the matter in it, and there are vast spatial volumes between those atoms. A black hole begins as a large mass that has too little energy to hold its constituents apart. For example, when a large star exhausts its energy, its mass begins sliding down its spatial curvature until it entirely collapses to form a black hole. Black holes have also been known as singularities because their spatial curvature is so intense that everything in them might be squeezed to a point. Their gravity is so intense that nothing can escape after being sucked in; not even light. A black hole cannot be seen, heard, or touched; ever. All that we know about them is deduced from the behavior of nearby external objects The inside of a black hole may be the most mysterious and strangest thing in the universe. That is one reason that the words "might" and "may" have started popping up in the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). We can be fairly sure that it is strange because entire stars disappear into something smaller than a city. However, as you will see in the following discussion, the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) may provide a probe into the black hole. If so, then scientists and theorists may be able to expand it into a tool. Our scientists and theorists have proven themselves capable of turning the smallest bit of information into volumes. (*ref. Source: "Gravity's Fatal Attraction", by Mitchell Begelman and Martin Rees, 1996, 246 pp., hard bound, ISBN 0-7187-5074-0. An entire book about black holes with illustrations to assist the layman.) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy"; Special Issue "Origin And Fate Of The Universe", 2020 not dated, pp.16-21, "Our Trillion Galaxy Universe", by Christopher Conselice.)
-- . -- -- . -- The black hole may have something interesting to tell us about the nature of gravity. Particles :
Energy :
"UGM" (universal gravity model) :
That supports the "UGM" proposal that gravity is a manifestation of spatial curvature, which is curved by mass acceleration.
The universe seems to be emphatically supporting the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) and, therefore, its encompassing "UCM" (Universal Construct Model).
-- . -- -- . -- Total destruction of everything is not required by entrance into the black hole. Some mass escapes entry destruction to support angular momentum.
Subatomic Particles :
Aberrant Atoms :
-- . -- -- . -- This section is important to other areas such as the "Black Hole Conjectures" in the "Dark Energy" derivative and in the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). Our Ignorance :
The Problem :
The Communication Channel :
Hypothesis :
Slick Space :
Superfluid Space Conduit :
Conjecture :
Therefore, if correct, then the conjecture allows the black hole to contribute to universal expansion as presented in the "Black Hole Conjectures" of the following "Dark Energy" derivative. ( Caution :
-- . --
-- . -- The amount of mass that has entered a black hole is usually estimated from the apparent spatial curvature evinced by nearby stars and other matter. That may be inaccurate due to atomic and body-level causes. The gravity manifestation may be greater or lesser than normally produced by the mass that entered that environment. -- . -- Atoms entering a black hole are theoretically disrupted down to the sub-atomic level, and possibly below, so some spatial curvature (i.e., gravity) from atomic-level angular acceleration may cease as they enter. -- . -- Spatial curvature is proportional to angular momentum; i.e., to the amount of mass and its speed. But we do not know the morphology of a black hole below the event horizon, so we do not know how much of its mass continues to rotate to curve space after that mass entered it. We also do not know how fast that mass is moving. As postulated elsewhere, that mass may approach the speed of light.
The amount of mass that has entered a black hole is usually estimated from the apparent spatial curvature evinced by nearby stars and other matter. That may be inaccurate due to the atomic and body-level causes. The gravity manifestation may be greater or lesser than normally produced by the mass that entered that environment. -- . -- There is a possibility that the mass may acquire multiple-axis angular acceleration with concomitant alteration of curvature strength and complexity.
-- . -- -- . -- Residual rotation of the disrupted matter might produce a coherent rotation of the entire mass within the black hole. That will produce spatial curvature. Much of that mass will be in the form of sub-atomic particles that are free to associate as dictated by the great spatial curvature. The result will be a mass with the homogeneity of a neutron star, and possibly in entirely different matter forms. The strangeness of those matter forms is indicated by the exciting unnatural forms of matter that have recently been formed in Man's physics labs. Possibly that environment favors the delivery of a specific type of matter. But notice that that statement is made as a possibility, which thereby also presents the possibility that multiple matter forms may be available to expression in the population. The solidity and hardness of that mass can provide interesting characteristics such as, for example, massive cacophonic reverberation when black holes merge. (Such reverberation might give hints about the nature of the body that produced it.) There is a possibility that the mass may acquire multiple-axis angular acceleration with concomitant increased curvature strength and complexity.
( Off the subject, but particularly exciting for the potential impact on civilization are the super-conductivity and magnetic phases being studied in twisted bilayer graphene if it can be achieved at room temperature.)
-- . -- -- . -- There is a possibility that if
Possibly octodecillions of "Sols", and maybe far higher if the "Aggremmass" conjecture is correct. An octodecillion is
A major revision of the extant amount of matter may be underway in the cosmology community, but it may have little impact on the above numbers.
-- . --
________________________________ Aggremmass Table Of Contents
End of Aggremmass Table Of Contents
________________________________ Before proceeding, let us note the importance of "Axiom 1" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). Unless you are a working theologian or writer of fantasy, there is the universe and there is nothing else. Although the participants were extremely superstitious, the discovery of North America was not a discovery of another universe. ( Apologia :
The Construct:
Per "Hypothesis 7" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), the amount of spatial curvature is directly proportional to the amount of mass and its acceleration rate (angular momentum). And "hypothesis 11" removes any size constraint. Therefore, it may be possible for extreme curvature to truncate an object's communication channel. Since the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) allowed significant portions of the universe to aggregate into inconceivably large masses (See "Stellar Aggregation".), it is possible that those masses became so great that even their own spatial curvature channels were sucked in or collapsed, with each thereby closing its "Communication Channel". Therefore, the universe may contain masses that are so large that they are not detectable. ( The "Inception Nucleosynthesis" derivative in the "Theory Derivatives" topic presents another consequence of the extreme environment of the early universe.) Nomenclature:
Definition:
Without expressed spatial warpage, an aggremmass became absolutely undetectable during its creation. Because there is no "Spatial Warpage" around it, it interacts with the universe only when something physically touches its event horizon. Space throughout the universe is free to interact and share with "hypothesis 5, Corollary 2" adjacent space. The space in an aggremmass is noble and cut off from adjacent space except for rare occurrences that will be discussed later.
Cessation Frontier:
Therefore, a cessation frontier was formed by the disappearance of each aggremmass. Each cessation frontier began spherical propagation outward at the universal "Speed Limit". If a frontier has not yet passed through our region, it might provide a particular thrill for a scientist who detects it.
A Conjecture:
-- . --
________________________________ Great Voids:
See the following "Size" sub-section. Universe-Wide Construct Uniformity:
Before aggremmass disappearance, their activity had the potential for interaction with the entire universe. That would have resulted in great strings of matter that were directionally oriented before suppression of the aggremmass activity. Universe's Largest Gravity Sources:
Some Additional Clues:
Those factors may leave recognizable impacts, detritus, and events across the universe. 13 billion years may have erased such evidence, but if there were such major impacts upon the universe, then the evolved activity may bear an ancient and unnatural signature. Posssible "Empirical" support Of The "UIM" aggremmass conjecture :
-- . --
________________________________ "Empirical" Support Of The "UIM" aggremmass conjecture in this segment : More than 150 scientists in several disciplines have worked together to create a new analysis of the "CMB" (Cosmic Microwave Background), which delivers a predictive map of the subsequent structure of the universe. They also photographed, catalogued, and located galaxies by the "hundreds of millions", from which they constructed temporal-spatial maps of universal structure going back 8 to 9 million years. The "CMB" prediction and current galaxy clusters were compared. The findings are tentative at this time, but it appears that the current universe is too smooth. It also appears that as many as half of all expected galaxy clusters, and possibly all of the most massive galaxy clusters, are entirely missing from the current universe. Their findings (20230623), thus far, support the hypothesized "Aggremmass" activity, which easily could have sucked out half of the universe in the latter stages of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) activity, probably near the "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" Note that galaxy clusters, which the studies indicate are missing, would have been extensively forming at that time. That great mass concentration into galaxy clusters throughout the universe, had nothing to arrest it, which would have triggered aggremmass activity, and those clusters would have then disappeared into local aggremmasses. As indicated by the referenced "Empirical" research findings. Notice that the universe's changing physical topology has been captured by that study. That may provide a temporal tool for investigating many events in the universe. ( A Personal Frustration:
(*ref. : "Sky & Telescope", June 2023, p. 11, "The Universe Is Too Smooth By Half" abstracted from "Physical Review D" by Camille Carlisle.)
(*ref. : "Sky & Telescope", Mar 2022, pp. 14-21, "The Hubble Constant")
-- . --
________________________________ The "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) presents evidence that the universe began with extremely uniform mass distribution. Therefore, the dearth of material in great voids in comparison to populated areas may provide a "ball-park" estimate of the mass that is within aggremmasses.
Supernova Disruption :
Limits :
-- . --
________________________________ A mass of that size cannot be moved. But, in light of the way that reality persists in embarrassing our little minds, let us consider movement a possibility, and see how it might occur. We might expect accretion to be symmetrical in aggregate. But it is possible that the total mass absorbed on one side of an aggremmass might exceed that of other sides. As mass is absorbed by the aggremmass' spatial curvature, the aggremmass will also be pulled by the incoming mass. That secondary attraction will be lesser, of course, but the total accretion experience could become significant. Where that happened, the aggremmass would have started a movement that would tend to endure.
-- . --
________________________________ No facile disposition of such a great mass has immediately come to mind, so perhaps there can be no disposition, thereby leaving the universe permanently populated by great aggremmasses. Astronomers may notice, in that case, the rare and inexplicable disappearance of matter, stars, and photons when they touch an invisible aggremmass. But without spatial curvature around them, such events will be without warning and will leave neither product nor residue. So other than the fortuitous observance of an unheralded and abrupt disappearance of mass or light, those great aggremmasses will be otherwise undetectable. One might hope that the merger of two of them might produce bizarre phenomena in a seemingly empty region, but without spatial curvature manifestation via communication channels, those miniature universes can pass within inches of each other without interaction. There may be a possibility of visible disruption if a mass runs into an aggremmass because some time will be needed for the entire mass to be captured. If, for example, it is a star, the free portion will experience nothing from the aggremmass as it follows the captured portion, but perhaps it may react to its progressive unbalanced loss of mass and stability. Or maybe the mass will be violently ripped apart before momentum can be uniformly established throughout the mass. There is also the possibility of a trail. For example, a galaxy's encounter with such a mass might leave an obvious trail through the galaxy. But all of this is the most tentative kind of conjecture because it is a result of allowing the manifestation of theory pressure from within the models. ( Dark Energy Note :
-- . --
________________________________ (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Oct 2019, pp. 14-19 "Cosmic Mariners" by Noam Libeskind, carries cosmography maps that reach out to a few hundred million light years and include some great voids.
(*ref. Source: "Astronomy"; Special Issue "Origin And Fate Of The Universe", 2020 not dated, p. 70-75, "Why Do Galaxies Align ?", by Michael West.) (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Mar 2022, pp. 14-21 "The Hubble Constant: Tension and Release" by Arwen Rimmer (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", June 2023, p. 11 "The Universe Is Too Smooth by Half" by Camille M. Carlisle
-- . --
End of the Aggremmass derivative.
________________________________ Contents Of Dark Energy Derivative
________________________________ Scientists were confounded by stumbling across acceleration of the universe's expansion in 1998. Not even cosmology theorists had predicted acceleration. Having no explanation, astronomers and cosmologists quickly invented the term "dark energy" and said that it
Most accounts of the search for dark energy speak of it as though it exists, and portray the search as a foregone conclusion. But it was invented without support; i.e., a name was pulled out of the air, and the public was told that that name, whatever it might be, causes the acceleration (although it is undetectable). (( People, might it be less embarrassing in such situations to just admit to those who feed us that Man has stumbled across another wonderful and stimulating scientific mystery that we do not immediately understand ?)) -- . -- Let us ignore for a few minutes that which we think is dark energy ; just lay down that silly "is not and cannot" list for a few minutes. Then, let us look at the only thing remaining; that we seem to be seeing an accelerating expansion of the universe. That is all that we know. Now, let us concentrate on the things that the "UCM" tells us. The "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), unaltered by the dark energy enigma offers the following explanations for the observed expansion acceleration in the form of one theory and three possible conjectures. None of the four is exclusive, so any or all can be valid. If any are valid then :
The following theory and conjectures present a model in which "dark energy" is not energy, but is the strange result of one or more processes. Their affects are inconstant, changing along spatial and "Temporal" axes, and the "UCM" seems to indicate that that change, recently in cosmic terms, became an accelerating increase.
-- . --
________________________________ The following five hypothetical mechanisms do not entirely require an expansion of existing space. Three inject space and two expand existing space. Sources of spatial volume are discussed in each of the four mechanisms. Remember that per "Hypothesis 3 and its Corollary 1" of the "Universal Gravity Model", every given unit of space has independent integrity and superfluidity. Any new or expanded unit of space is interjected into local spatial interstices that are fractured and forced by the new space. The interjection is assisted by the lack of explicit volume in space, which allows the new space to be compressed to sub-"Planck" sizes. ( See "Hypothesis 4" of the "UGM".) The concomitant superfluidity-rigidity of space pressures adjacent space to displace to allow the new space to return to its natural volume, thereby beginning universal expansion. The universal "Speed Limit" imposes a constraint upon movement toward the frontier, so a pressure-wave front is thereby created within the body. Per "Corollary 3" of "Hypothesis 1" the ultimate result is that the universe expands, but with a fractured and diverse speed. At any given location, it is locally constrained by the universal "Speed Limit". However, it is conceivable and should be expected, that farther out and toward the frontier, the speed is being compounded by the activity arising from deep within the body of the universe. Local insulation of local activity by local space will be found to allow "Insulated Compound Acceleration", to arise.
-- . --
________________________________ This section posits one of the sources of the spatial pressure. The "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) hypothesizes the raising of all sub-atomic matter from the spatial medium into matter wave forms that are solitons. Whereas the next section is conjecture, this section presents a theoretical universal acceleration of expansion that is produced by the events described in various segments of this "Theory Derivatives" topic. They describe "Matter Wave Form Collapse". As outlined in the "Stellar Mechanics" derivative, release of energy in stars is affected by the collapse of the matter wave form, which also releases the space that is in it. The amount of space is addressed in the "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative. All across the universe, the massive "Nuclear Devices" called stars have been continuously collapsing matter wave forms since the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) completed its work. The energy that they are releasing is obvious, but the continual flow of space from them is hidden from our limited senses. Per "Hypothesis 3" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), that continual flow of space into the universe from all stars since universal inception exerts a pressure that is internal to the universe. Local spatial curvature, that we sense as gravity, overcomes local expansion, thereby causing local expansion to push into the locally external expanses (perhaps extra-galactic interstices), thereby accelerating universal expansion. If correct, then this theory obviates the need for the invented "dark energy". ( We may be approaching a consensus on the number of cubic miles that the universe expands each year, that could make the rate of spatial volume release calculable and ascertainable. That could allow precise redefinition of the constant in the equation of "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative; i.e., E=M(C^2) .) ( See the "references" sub section of the "UCM Empirical Support" segment.)
-- . --
________________________________ Unlike the previous theory construct, the following black hole actions are presented as conjecture because they are too far removed from "Empirical" observations to be theory. They are logical extrapolation. The thing that makes them suspect is that they are built upon behavior within black holes that is unobserved and only conjectural. Therefore, they are presented as conjecture. An interesting problem in black hole mechanics is evaluated and tentatively solved in the "Internal Mechanics" sub-section that follows the conjectures. (Please scroll down for conjectures.)
-- . --
-- . -- This sub-section posits another source of the spatial pressure in addition to the previous theory source. Is space perfectly and infinitely elastic ?
Conjecture :
If the conjecture is valid,
Per "Hypothesis 3" and its corollaries of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), that continual flow of new space into the universe from all black holes since universal inception exerts a pressure that is internal to the universe. Local spatial curvature, that we sense as gravity, overcomes local expansion, but that local expansion pushes into the locally external (perhaps galactic interstices), and onward to the frontier to accelerate universal expansion. If correct, then this conjecture obviates the need for the invented "dark energy". ( Evidential Support :
-- . --
-- . -- This sub-section posits another source of the spatial pressure. The "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) hypothesizes the raising of all sub-atomic matter from the spatial medium into matter wave forms. This conjecture employs an action similar to the preceding "Stellar Activity Theory" section. That section describes how stellar activity routinely and continually uses "Matter Wave Form Collapse" to release energy and space from matter solitons. The difference between that theory and this conjecture is that the immense spatial curvature of the black hole immediately releases the energy and space in a captured stellar mass as it passes the event horizon. Conjecture :
The space expands into the universe. The energy appears to be retained. We are hampered by a lack of knowledge of process detail. Maybe the awful violence of the environment totally disrupts all structures that venture therein, or maybe a percentage survives as sub-atomic particles and unprocessed atoms. (See also the "Residual Mass" section of the "Black Hole Construct" derivative, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.)
-- . --
-- . -- The Problem :
For a more coherent and detailed description of the problem and its solution, please see the "Black Hole Construct" derivative. The Communication Channel :
Hypothesis ;
Slick Space :
Conjecture :
If correct, then that conjecture allows the black hole to contribute to universal expansion.
-- . --
________________________________ This is a conjecture. This section posits a source of spatial pressure. At this time (20230810), the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) was presented years ago, but its contribution to the "Dark Energy" derivative is just now being made. The "Advent" of the "UIM" was presented as a "hypothesis" that arose from a complex meeting of conditions, postulates, and hypotheses in the "Universal Inception Advent" sub-section of the "Great Expansion (Big Bang) segment. It is presented here as a conjecture for use by this Dark Energy derivative. ( Note here that the "Big Bang" had been obviated in sections and sub sections prior to the "UIM"'s "Advent".) Support :
So it is with some confidence that this conjecture is submitted for consideration. Preparation :
The Launch :
Braking :
Postulate :
Therefore, that which has been labeled "Dark Energy" is merely this activity, which is naturally accelerating. Additionally, the most external reaches will be experiencing all of the universe's internal expansion. After 13.8 billion years of accumulating acceleration, the frontier may now be exhibiting a steady disapearance of matter and energy. Empirical Support :
-- . --
________________________________ Despite this explanatory model document having been on the internet for some time, cosmologists still seem to be having trouble reconciling their various measurements. Prof. Katie Mack mentions in her article (See reference below.) that the value for the cosmological constant in today's universe is around 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, but measurements from when the universe was young give us a value of only 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec. When the investigators see that disagreement, they tend to bounce up and down and yell that the sky is falling. Instead, they need to calm down and look at what the data is telling them; i.e., it is telling them to look to this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), which tells them that the early universe expanded far slower than today's universe, and tells them why. Actually, the model is far more complex than that and it is telling them that the universe's behavior is more interesting than noticed so far, and that they may soon be seeing many constants of differing values. Those values will differ by important, but tiny amounts, which may be why they have not already manifested in the data. If it is correct, then the mathematicians and physicists will see no end to describing and explaining how even the local universe behaves. (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 120, Nov-Dec 2020, pp. 356-361, "Tearing Apart The Universe", by Prof. Katie Mack) ( Also, the many factors in the model are still being analyzed, and there may be extremely interesting and unexpected, nascent factors that have been hidden for billions of years while being driven toward expression.)
-- . --
________________________________ Contents Of Dark Matter Derivative
________________________________ "Astronomy" has published an update on the Dark Matter subject. Succinctly put, it reports that continued research has still not found support for any of the popular explanations for dark matter. The only proposal that has empirical support, remains unrefuted, and has not been addressed by commercial publications is, of course, this "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 7" of the "UGM" account neatly for the additional gravity without inventing the "dark matter" term. (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", vol. 49, Sep. 2021, pp.16-23, "Dark Matter The Unusual Suspects", by Robert Lea.) -- . --
________________________________ "Sky & Telescope" has published another update on the Dark Matter subject. It reports that the most sensitive dark matter detector in the world, LUX-SEPLIN(LZ) in Lead South Dakota, has still not found any dark matter particles. The only theory that has empirical support, remains unrefuted, and has not been addressed by commercial publications is, of course, this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 7" of its "UGM"(Universal Gravity Model) account neatly for the additional gravity without inventing the "dark matter" term. (*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", Nov. 2022, p.10, "Dark Matter Remains Elusive - for now", by Govert Schilling.) -- . --
________________________________ Scientists have known since early in the twentieth century that galaxies revolve so fast that centrifugal force should overcome centripetal retention to eject stars, and possibly entirely disrupt the galaxy. Since that is not happening, they invented the term "dark matter", and defined it as a gravity source. A great deal has been written about dark matter, which
The subject is becoming akin to high pressure sales techniques. The following reference invites research on "only" "standard" dark matter particles. Perhaps one will find them beside "standard" unicorn horns that also cannot be detected.
So brushing aside the fairy tales, the only thing that seems sure is that large bodies evince what appears to be a gravitational attraction that is in addition to that which would be expected for the calculated gravitational mass of the objects. ( Even stranger are the published photographs of fantasy dark matter. Genuine photos of galaxies and galaxy clusters are altered by adding blue clouds of undetectable "dark matter". In science, that is as bizarre as are the speeches of America's leftist politicians.) That mysterious source of gravity that astronomers cannot find in and around galaxies, seems to be identified by the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) without modification. A review of the "UGM" (universal gravity model), that is presented on this document, is recommended before reading this derivative. Essentially, the model presents accelerative spatial warping as the thing that we perceive as gravity. So galaxies present more gravity than could be produced by classical gravitation theory alone. In particular, see its "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 7".
-- . --
________________________________ A galaxy is an independent entity with a tremendous amount of rotating mass; i.e., angular momentum. If the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), that is presented on this document, is correct, then space is curved tremendously by the angular acceleration of that great rotating mass, thereby manifesting a great amount of gravity in addition to the legacy amount that is generated by its components. Classical theory cannot account for that additional gravity. Ergo, the invention of dark matter.
-- . --
________________________________ The "UGM"'s (Universal Gravity Model) "hypothesis 11" specifies that the model is not limited by size. If that is correct, then it should be found operating in galaxies of every size. Where the surplus gravity of the "UGM" is found in a galaxy, astronomers should also find that stellar orbits are rotationally synchronized with those inside and outside each orbit, so that the galaxy appears to rotate as a unit. A limitation to the effect may be encountered, but the effect will be found to create object speeds that otherwise appear anomalous, unexpected, and unexplained within galaxies; i.e., the spatial curvature will hold internally orbiting objects as units of the galaxy. For example, the outermost objects of the galaxy will appear to move too fast to be retained in the galactic structure simply because the unexpected spatial curvature of the "UGM" has held onto high speed objects that otherwise would have been flung into the universe by the centrifugal force of their high speed.
-- . --
________________________________ Scientists also found a need for that same mysterious dark matter gravity source in clusters of galaxies because the clusters have the same structural problem that galaxies have. A cluster of galaxies that is rotating will manifest its own massive spatial curvature, as do its constituent galaxies, thereby evincing gravity in addition to that which is classically expected. "Hypothesis 5" and "Hypothesis 7" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) account for the additional gravity without inventing the "dark matter" term.
-- . --
________________________________
-- . -- In addition to the normal operation of galaxies and clusters as noted above, strange new evidence of the operation of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) may have been found instead of the so-called "Dark Matter". While looking for dark matter in 2018, a team led by Peter van Dokkum found an ultra diffuse galaxy, NGC 1052-DF2, that evinces no dark matter effects. It is the first galaxy ever found without dark matter effects. Since that is contrary to current thought in astronomy and cosmology, they immediately began looking for another to substantiate the first one, and found NGC 1052-DF4, which also lacks the dark matter effects. (See the first reference below.) They determined that globular star clusters were moving slower than possible in those galaxies, which meant that there was no dark matter there; i.e., if there had been dark matter there, it would have pulled the low speed clusters into a central black hole. Then they measured the speed of individual stars, which confirmed the finding. The stars were moving too slowly, which indicated that they were being retained only by the expected classical gravity of their galaxy. Explaining The "UGM" (universal gravity model) provides a simpler explanation for the situation when one reasons in the other direction. You will recall that the "UGM" proposes that spatial curvature that causes gravity is produced by the angular acceleration of rotating masses. The discovered galaxies are nearly the size of the Milky Way, but they contain only a half percent (one two-hundredth) of the Milky Way's mass, and it is rotating too slowly. That small mass moving at low speed provides insufficient angular momentum (Per "Hypothesis 7", of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) ) to curve space enough to retain faster moving objects. Therefore, objects and gas that moved as quickly as normally expected in a Milky Way-sized galaxy were thrown from those galaxies by centrifugal force long ago, leaving only the observed slow moving objects. Proposal : Presented July 2019.
(*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Jul. 2019, p.10, "Two Ghostly Galaxies Lack Dark Matter" by Jake Parks.) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Mar. 2020, pp.44-51, "Do All Galaxies have Dark matter ?", by Jake Parks.) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Apr. 2020, pp.10-11, "More Galaxies Found To Be Missing Dark Matter", by Jake Parks) (*ref. Source: "Astronomy's" Special Issue "Origin And Fate Of The Universe", 2020 (not dated), pp. 76-83, Article "Do All Galaxies have Dark matter ?", by Jake Parks.)
-- . --
-- . -- Although not yet a proof, "Empirical" astronomy is accumulating data on galaxies that supports the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) while creating a problem for dark matter. The theory that proposed dark matter also predicted that small satellite galaxies will orbit randomly and in erratic paths around the parent galaxies. However, astronomers are finding that satellite galaxies do not obey that dark matter prediction, but do conform to the regularity of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). That behavior was found around the Milky Way, Andromeda, and Centaurus A galaxies. Although the sample of three galaxies is far too small to be proof, the report notes that the behavior is 100% of the test galaxies so far, so it appears indicative. (*ref. Source: "Astronomy", Jun 2018, p.11, "Centaurus A Contradicts Dark Matter Models", by Alison Klesman)
-- . --
-- . -- Per "Corollary 2" of "Hypothesis 12" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), the light of distant galaxies behind a massive galaxy is sometimes bent around the foreground galaxy, and thereby magnified by the UGM's acceleratively-created spatial deformation. In other words, it is not gravitational lensing, but spatial lensing; i.e., lensing by spatial deformation. That spatial lensing is sometimes greater than can be accounted for by the visible mass in the foreground galaxy. The "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) accounts for that additional curvature as explained in the prior "Galaxies" section.
-- . --
-- . -- A "Discover" report presents a nicely succinct synopsis of the more prominent proposals for Dark Matter with descriptions and research results. It reports that nearly a century of thought and research has failed to support any of the many proposed dark matter theories. Furthermore, some of the most popular have even been refuted. This new "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) with its "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) was not addressed in the "Discover" report. Despite the great odds against it, so much supportive evidence for the "UCM" has been found that it is beginning to appear that the "UCM" may be correct. (*ref. Source: "Discover", Dec. 2019, pp. 40-47, by Adam Hadhazy)
-- . --
-- . -- The following reference illustrates the fact that, despite all the attention and research, no source evidence has been found for dark matter. It is only a conjecture for "matter" that would have been better named "dark something". A long and technical dissertation obscures the fact that it is not about an observation of reality. It is amazing that such "nonscience" is published by the, formerly esteemed, "Nature" journal. (*ref. Source: The "Nature" journal, 3 Sep. 2020, pp. 39-42, "Universal Structure Of Dark Matter Haloes Over A Mass Range Of 20 Orders Of Magnitude" by J. Wang et al.) That was expected of a Chinese publication. Is nobody on that editorial staff aware that J. Wang et al can next submit the same paper with substituted research subject and retitled "Universal Structure Of Unicorn Haloes Over A Mass Range Of 20 Orders Of Magnitude" ? With, of course, extensive analytical calculations. Where were J. Wang et al when we desperately needed them for resolution of the hard-fought "ACDP" controversy in the dark ages ? ( References here to multiple reports were deleted for reasons specified in the "Nature Journal" appendix.)
-- . --
________________________________ A tentative proposal. Please keep in mind that this is a proposal that is presented as a postulate. The need for foundation properties was stumbled upon in the development of the "Critical Details" sub-section of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). For example, nothing can exist until the universe has a mechanism or means to actualize the "Entity" property as a property of objects. Any entity. And we have the same problem with the basic "dimension" property; entities cannot exist until they have dimension. Any solution must be universally applicable. Note that "Postulate 1" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) recognizes a need for matter and energy support by specifying, "Neither matter nor energy can exist in nothing. They require the support of the spatial matrix.". So the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) logically created all of space before introducing matter and energy into the universe. Let us propose that each object attribute is included within the design of space as a property schema that directs its creation as needed; so the creation of space included those schemata within it. The existence of space presents the solution to many problems within itself. For example, its existence created the foundation for the "entity" property, so that after space became extant, entities of matter became possible. (The existence of that entity gave to Man the very important intellectual concept that is discussed in the "Entity" topic of the appendices.) The "dimension" property is critically important to the universe, so it probably should be first in the list because so many basics, such as "entity", require it. So dimension is a property schema function, and possibly one of the most basic functions provided by space. (As used here, "function" is in the mathematical sense.) We have mentioned only the dimension and entity properties. There may be many more foundation properties, but to retain the fun of rapid exploration let us note that these epitomize the other descriptions, and move on. Postulate Proposal :
Postulate Proposal :
In operation :
Although they are intentionally named and presented as geometry concepts, they are not geometry. They are properties, each with a unique schema, that create real-world properties of objects. ( Interestingly, notice that the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) raised portions of space into matter as a quantum physics matter wave form. So all of the universe's matter was created and distributed as a massive event.) ( Please see the "Description Of Energy" section of "The Universe's Energy" derivative for similar quantum mechanics.)
-- . --
________________________________ The creation of any spatial disturbance, including a wave, is addressed in the various sections of the "Hypotheses And Construct" segment of the "UGM" (universal gravity model). Morphological typification of spatial disturbances is presented in its "Deformation Typification" section. The "UGM" (universal gravity model) is made possible by the fact that mass acceleration curves space as explicitly stated by "Hypothesis 5". Discussed a number of times is the fact that gravity does not exist. That which we subjectively experience as gravity is the partial reaction of our primitive senses to the spatial curvature that is presented in "Hypothesis 12" of the "UGM".
Spatial curvature can sometimes be found without a source. For example, "Hypothesis 6" presents a speed limit for the propagation of spatial events. Having that finite speed limit, a curve can be detached by the destruction of its source, leaving the extremities of the curve to endure as the source destruction slowly manifests through it to the curve's end. Extreme events, such as super novae and black hole collisions, create brief and extreme local acceleration that can create and launch orphan shock waves in the medium. The collision of black holes, for example, which would create a great disturbance in the spatial medium, would produce a great local acceleration in the medium ; i.e., a great orphan shock wave would be generated and driven outward from the event.
Note that the residue of that collision, which would be a larger black hole, would continue to generate a normal spatial curvature that we detect as gravity around it. Separately, the event's shock wave would bore out into the universe at the speed of light as a great standing wave in the spatial matrix. The black hole's normal spatial curvature will be undetectable because we are within that curvature's ambiance as discussed in the "Curvature Effects" section of the "UGM", but the shock wave is a detectable anomalous and transient event.
-- . --
________________________________ Contents of The Soliton segment.
_____________________________ ( Noun. Pronounced with short "O"s and a short "I", and with the accent on the first syllable, as solid or solitary.) Definition :
The ability of disparate media to support solitons has not been studied and catalogued. So it appears, at this time, that we can expect any medium to support solitons. They now even find unlikely places in theoretical physics and quantum mechanics. One must be careful of imposters. For example, one sees many waves a thousand miles long marching eastward like an Asian army across the Pacific in high altitude photographs. But those are maintained and fueled by the energy of constant winds, so they are not solitons. Another example is the great and interesting 6,000 mile-long atmospheric standing wave that has been found on Venus. This writer suspects that it is a standing wave, only, that is being sustained by the surface highland beneath it; i.e., not a soliton. Even stranger is a characteristic of the Venusian atmosphere when that atmosphere is considered as an object or "System". Prof. Byrne reports that its upper atmosphere is rotating 60 times faster than the surface of the planet. He suggests that the cause of that superrotation may be thermal tides. If it turns out that continuing external causes, such as thermal tides, cannot be identified as the cause, then the phenomenon may be entirely identified as a great soliton that was generated by the early pathological conditions that destroyed the planet. (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 109, Jan-Feb 2021, pp. 30-37, "Unveiling Earth's Wayward Twin" by Prof. Paul Byrne.) Simple energy pulses are usually not solitons. Examples are seismic echoes, thunder, and a flashlight's photon beam.
-- . --
_____________________________ A soliton was first observed and reported as an event in a Scotland water canal where it formed when a lock was cycled. It formed outside the lock gate from wall to wall, and maintained its shape, size, and speed for an hour or so while moving through the canal. It moved at a horse's walking speed until the observer's path was blocked, and it was lost to view as it moved away. It was undiminished for the entire period of observation.
Of this, the author is unsure after a single reading more than half a century ago, but seems to recall that the observer was Scottish and delivered his report as a member of the Royal Society Of London For The Advancement Of Science sometime in the nineteenth century. ( Mea culpa. At that time (around 60 years ago), the author was reading as much as a book per day, most of which were useless science fiction, so it is a wonder that he remembers any useful material.)
-- . --
_____________________________ Contrary to statements by the scientists involved, the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) reveals that the waves that were predicted by theorists a hundred years ago, and were recently detected by the LIGO apparatus, are not gravitational; they are spatial. They are, literally, waves in and of space that were raised by massive events, roughly comparable to sonic waves in water. That detection supports the "Foundation Hypotheses" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). ( However, the confusion of those scientists is not their fault. The gravity, space, and spatial curvature concepts have been in a state of confusion for a century. The confusion is easily recognized and rectified now that we have the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) with its component "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model).) The behavior of the LIGO apparatus indicated a strong sequential expansion and contraction of space along multiple spatial dimensions as the wave passed. That behavior is definite experimental verification of Corollaries 1 and 2 of Hypothesis 1 of the "UGM" (universal gravity model). The wave detected by LIGO in 2016 was not a microscopic particle, but was a large structure that was disconnected from its source. More importantly for the "UCM", it had originated more than a billion light years away, meaning that it had maintained its structural integrity for more than a billion years without energy input.
The shape of the detected waves reveals that they are three dimensional. That indicates that they are compressive pressure waves that originated from a massive shock to the spatial medium in which they arose. Thus, "Corollary 2 of Hypothesis 1", "Corollary 1 of Hypothesis 2", and "Hypothesis 12" of the "UGM" (universal gravity model) are substantiated. Interesting characteristics of the first spatial wave detected by the Ligo apparatus :
Based upon those characteristics, that spatial wave can be characterized as a soliton. Therefore, let us state that the spatial fabric supports solitons. It supports solitons in loco and in motion. Note the length of time that that soliton maintained its integrity, and subsequent observations found solitons that had existed for billions of years longer. "Empirical" evidence for the existence of solitons is the original report in the "Historical Introduction" section and the Ligo observations that continue to be made, with support by the "Matter Hypothesis". Those media are water, space, and space. So until more data are available, let us say that
(*ref. Source: "Astronomy", May 2016, pp. 22-27 announced the LIGO event.)
-- . --
_____________________________ ( References here to reports in the "Nature Journal" were deleted for reasons covered in the "Nature Journal" appendix.) The cited article by Shen et al uses an obscure technical vocabulary that makes it hard to understand even in generalities. It appears to report the development of a technology that can routinely generate optical solitons that are made of photons to perform a specialized service for electronic systems. That and other recent articles in "Nature" seem to indicate that the soliton concept has gained widespread usage in science while this author was engaging in various other careers. However, due to the esoteric vocabulary that makes the report hard to understand, this is announced with some reticence ; there are factors embedded in the experiment vocabulary that might be delivering ordinary pulses of light that the hopeful experimenters mis-label as solitons. The Chinese might be confusing photon pulses with solitons due to the confusing nature of light. The ability to build structured tools made of photons might generally impact quantum mechanics. Maybe the experimenters will publish a description of their photon soliton including, at least, its structural and topological descriptions and properties in a trustworthy publication. ( The open antagonism, dishonesty, theft, and clandestine operations that this nation has suffered from Communist China makes one wish that journals would identify for the reader those investigators who are of Communist China. People who appear to have trouble with the concept of "truth" cannot be trusted in science.
-- . --
_____________________________ Following are some of the areas where the soliton is used by the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). "Hypothesis 1" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) presents space with a structural fabric that participates in the characteristics and mechanics of the universe. "Hypothesis 10" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) posits standing waves in space; i.e., solitons. The "Matter Hypothesis" is presented in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) as the source of all matter. It is presented as quantum physics matter wave forms; i.e., solitons that are raised within and from space. The "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative is presented in the "Derivatives" topic as the source of space for "Dark Energy". The "Stellar Mechanics" derivative presents the collapse of matter solitons as a source of nuclear power in the "Physics Derivatives" topic. The "Physics Integration" derivative uses the soliton to integrate quantum physics and classical physics. The soliton is used to suggest a longevity property for the universe in the "Universal Longevity Property" derivative.
-- . --
_____________________________ What is the maximum topological complexity of a soliton ? Thus far, solitons are treated as simplistic three dimensional blobs. But the matter wave form soliton presented in the "Matter Hypothesis", for example, is expected to contain some details. Those details are expected to make it possible for solitons to be used in processes that build objects of greater complexity. -- . -- The soliton is one of those phenomena that appear as obviously part of the natural universe while grabbing our attention with their unnaturalness. From horseback to quantum mechanics in two centuries, it now appears to be fundamental to the universal architecture. It is the stuff of wonder, so this writer is in no hurry to read research about it. In this case, the wonder is far more pleasant than the knowledge.
-- . --
________________________________ One of Monica Young's excellent articles in "Sky & Telescope" turned our attention to spiral galaxies. -- . -- The "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) replaced the discredited "Big Bang" with an ordered inception of the universe. That allowed the universe to more quickly begin operation, and rapidly gave it stable and grand galaxies. The creation of the universe actually created vast expanses of freely moving atomic hydrogen gas within incalculable quantities of "Sols". Immediately after the termination of the "UIM", the mass of the entire universe was contained in that gas. Also, the sudden existence of that mass triggered the existence of the universe's "Gravity". ( See the "UIM" for development details of that mass.) Those grand galaxies erected great gravity fields spanning the universe. Therefore, vast expanses of atomic clouds were observed racing into those galaxies shortly after the inception. ( See the description and analysis of that activity in the "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative.) In the "Hypothesis" section of that "Nascent Nucleosynthesis" derivative, you will also find "Empirical" support for that section in an article written back in 2021 by, none other than, you guessed it, Monica Young.
The article describes how Feige Wang and associates found a vast river of gas containing a galaxy-sized mass that was flowing into a galaxy shortly after the "UIM" shut down ; i.e., the birth of spiral arms in that galaxy. ( Note that "Stellar Aggregation And Ignition" took place during the "UIM" so massive objects, with their gravity, were available for the activity that was observed by Doctor Wang.) Additionally, by presenting the spiral galaxy problem, which was resolved by the "UIM", Monica has provided additional "Empirical" support for that "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and its over-arching "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), and by increased structural support, the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model)
-- . -- The article also noted that we have seen no creation of spiral arms in today's universe, and asks why. The answer lies in the previous description of the creation process of spiral arms ; i.e., as did "Nucleosynthesis" and "Magnetogenesis", galactic spiral arms arose as a consequence of the existence of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) with the environment that it created. So the lack of current production of spiral arms is simply due to the absence of the original environment, which is due to the absence of the operational "UIM". Is it now impossible? We do not know enough to answer that question, but we can say that it is improbable.
-- . -- The duration of the spirals was a matter of expectation and happenstance. In the eyes of a human, those delicate spirals could not possibly endure among the vast forces of the universe. But "delicate" is in the eye of the beholder. Those spiral arms, each, contained trillions of "Sols that could be disrupted only by a galactic mass, so many of them endured for billions of years, with some of them finally succumbing to the happenstance of a passing galactic mass.
-- . -- Again, it was a matter of expectation and happenstance ; i.e., merely a matter of time and life in the big universe where dust is depleted and big ugly galaxies sometimes wander by.
-- . --
________________________________ The materials of which the universe is constructed are
The "Matter Source" segment of the UIM (Universal Inception Model) presents matter as "Solitons" ( i.e., matter wave forms) that were raised from, and that stand within, the structure of space at the quantum physics level as sub-atomic particles, and each soliton is latently sustained today by that energy. Therefore, all three (matter, space, and energy) are fundamentally interlinked in every bit of matter at the quantum mechanics level. The model gives few details of that soliton's construct or its construction. Its source is presented as a result of developing factors within the model construct. The model indicates only that it was expressed as sub-atomic particles that were aggregated into atomic components. Those atomic components later combined into atoms during the "Hydrogen Event". Therefore, all matter is a combination of space and energy, thereby tightly linking all three. For discussion of the relative amounts of the three, please see the "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative. ( That indicates that the final event in an investigative chain may be limited entirely to the delivery of space and energy, of which the experimenter is hereby advised to be aware.)
-- . --
________________________________ A question that has plagued physicists and science writers for a century is whether or not the laws of physics might be different in other parts of today's vast universe. The "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) answers that question with its "UU" (universal uniformity). The uniformity was enforced spatially and "temporally" across the entire "UIM". That universal uniformity throughout the "UIM" insured that the body of physics laws are universally homogeneous today. In other words, in our spaceship or spacesuit, we will feel at home in any part of the universe. And another question is answered by the "UIM".
-- . --
________________________________ Contents Of Physics Integration
A source of concern for physicists has been the separation of the quantum physics domain of the very small from the classical physics domain of the intermediate and very large. Perhaps they are now linked into a single physics by this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). -- . --
_____________________________ The Ligo apparatus provided evidence that space supports solitons as hypothesized by the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), and can do so for billions of years for each soliton. (See the "Soliton" derivative.) The "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) specifies that all of the universe's sub-atomic matter is matter wave forms ( "Solitons") that were raised in the spatial medium at the quantum physics level. That means that all of the universe's ordinary matter, which is composed of sub-atomic particles, is composed of those solitons. Therefore, the Inception Model thereby makes ordinary matter a close link between quantum physics and classical physics. (See the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM".)
-- . --
_____________________________ The "Universal Material Relations" segment tightly links matter, space, and energy at the quantum mechanics level, so space and energy are forced to participate with matter as a link between quantum physics and classical physics. Also, apart from its use in matter, see the "Universal Energy" derivative that postulates that energy in all of its forms is localized deformation of space.
-- . --
_____________________________ The "Universal Gravity Model" appears to include :
(However, it is not yet certain that the observed effects were surely affected by quantum physics on the low end, and is not merely an inclusion of objects that secondarily have a "Quantum Mechanical" relation. The subject will probably be given more study as round tuits permit.) ( See also the "Theoretical Support For Quantum Mechanics", and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.)
-- . --
_____________________________ Without altering classical physics, the "Spatial Translation Conjecture" extends the mechanics of mass movement in classical physics down into the quantum mechanics realm, thereby providing additional integration of the two.
-- . --
________________________________ Table Of Contents Of Quantum Mechanics Support
_____________________________ The "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) hypothesizes that all sub-atomic matter was raised after decompression from space as matter wave forms. As such, they are presented by the "UIM" as "Solitons" within the spatial medium. Nearly a year after first publication of the "UIM", an article was published in "American Scientist" that directly supports the construct of the "UIM's" "Matter Source" hypothesis. It points out that experiments using Europe's Large Hadron Accelerator treat the electron as fluid-like. Doctor Petrov also notes that quantum mechanics treats all sub-atomic particles as "fluid-like substances", which is consonant with their delivery by the "UIM". (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 107, Feb-Mar 2019, pp. 94-97, "What's In A Shape?" by Prof. Alexey Petrov.) Therefore, it appears that the "UIM" has expanded the theoretical foundation of quantum mechanics. If valid, one can point to the UIM's "Matter Source" segment to help explain the source and relevance of quantum mechanics. ( Also, see the "Physics Integration" derivative.) ( Also, see "The Author's Ignorance" section of the "Apologia" topic of the appendices.)
-- . --
_____________________________ Much of the apparent probability of reality that bothered Einstein greatly might now become part of Newtonian physics. (See the "Physics Integration" segment.) Although still hidden from us by its diminutive scale, the embarrassing inferred magic that controlled the quantum physics domain for the past century would be replaced by the "Empiricism" and logic of ++ science. Perhaps the routine use of probability in that domain will continue for practical reasons. But movement of that domain into Newtonian physics will make it more understandable and subject to scrutiny and conquest by the intellects of our young physicists. Perhaps they will replace probability with mechanisms of, or similar to, classical linear assertions. In Dr. Einstein's mind, probability was associated with unknowable states of a gambler, but it was actually our unintentionally honest admission of ignorance of specific reality states. Although not desirable, it gave us a temporary position from which to address reality. But if we can now state with some confidence that matter is in a fluid state at the quantum level, that may move it from a domain of mysterious superstition into one of empirical probabilities wherein everything is imminently subject to our scientists' investigative attacks. In other words, we are merely stating that the quantum mechanical domain is, characteristically, too far removed from us to be known by conventional methods. Therefore, we are forced, not by magic, but by ordinary practical matters to employ estimation tools such as probability to access it. For example, before the advent of electronic snooping, the activity of an individual on the other side of the world could be estimated, and the more facts made available about him, or the greater the sample size, the greater would be the accuracy probability. But note that the hope and objective is the movement of quantum physics into "Empirical" science. If we have a solid link between empirical classical physics and quantum physics, then there may be realistic hope for such. ( ++ science
-- . --
_____________________________ The author does not necessarily entirely support mainstream quantum mechanics theory at this time because of his ignorance and because he suspects that the probabilistic nature of empirical observations may have had an overly influential impact on its theoretical construct. However, he also knows that he may be overly influenced by the empirical nature of classical physics. Nevertheless, he expects the quantum mechanics construct to be tightened by its closer association with classical physics throughout. Some apparent quantum mechanics is such obvious nonsense that it is embarrassing to think that real science might be grouped with it in the minds of laymen, such as teleportation claims. For an example of fast-talking-men pushing quantum mechanics double-talk devoid of "Empirical" evidence, see the following reference.
-- . --
________________________________ Universal Energy Table Of Contents
_____________________________ The "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model), the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and most of their "Derivatives" were built upon "Empirical" evidence and well-considered hypotheses, so we can be as confident as possible of the encompassing and structurally labyrinthine "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) theory. But this Energy derivative must seek a foundation below ordinary experience, where little empirical evidence has been found, and where familiar physics may not even function; the "Planck Level" realm of "Quantum Mechanics". At this time (October of 2020), the writer is uncomfortable with this energy derivative due to its minimal empirical support. Since this "UCM" would be notable enough without this energy derivative, there is temptation to drop it. Note that the source of energy was neither selected nor developed, as such, by the writer; it was developmentally manifested in the "Great Expansion" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) when it was needed by the "Inception Advent", and immediately before its requirement by the creation of "Matter", so it merely used the only available source; i.e., it manifested in the logical development of the model as the "Impetus Source". If you have critically followed the entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) development up to this point, then you will recognize the source's previous presentation in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). This is also covered in the following "Energy Source" section
It is important to remember that this energy derivative addresses matters that are at the quantum physics level, so elements of this discussion may or may not be, or seem to be, literal in the classical physics sense. Energy Transducer :
( For a glimpse of the current state of theory and research in this area of quantum physics, see
( If you are interested only in particle physics, and are not reading this physics theory in its entirety, you might also enjoy the "Inception Nucleosynthesis" derivative, and the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model).)
-- . --
_____________________________ Postulate :
Postulate Explication :
-- . -- The energy transducer presents an interface to the properties of its energy. All energy transducer contents are alike. That which we understand as the kinetic energy of a freight train is internally identical to the energy of a lightning bolt. But the energy of each of those transducers is differentiated by its properties and their values, so that it appears different from other instantiated transducers. Those properties and values are alterable so that any instantiated form of an energy transducer can become a different energy form, and will probably do so as it is used. An energy transducer may present itself as observable qualities of an object; e.g., the kinetic energy of a body. Or it may present itself as a group of accessible property values. The presentation and the use of the energy in an energy transducer is accomplished by mechanisms that are external to the transducer. So when you touch a high tension line, you cannot be hit by a locomotive because the local object can deliver the energy to you only as ten thousand volts. ( Alteration Alert :
-- . -- ( Alteration Alert :
Location Property : Each energy transducer may be ascribed a spatial locus because its energy is a universally localized deformation. Association Property : Each energy transducer may be : - Associated with a matter wave form, - in a generalized association with an object ( An object is composed of many solitons.) , - or dissociated and independent of matter, - and can be re-associated. Energy Form Property : Each energy transducer has an energy form ; e.g., - Kinetic. - Electrostatic. - Gravitational. - Electromagnetic field. - Electromagnetic radiation. - Nuclear. - Etc. An energy transducer form may change. Those form changes are frequent. For example, usage of a transducer may change its form. ( There is a possibility that the energy form is set by the topological typification of the spatial deformation, but only the energy form property is currently set forth as a participant in this property.) Permanence Property : Energy does not disappear from the universe. It is not exhausted by usage. ( See also "Universal Longevity Property" derivative, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) ( For a possible major deviance in the universe, see the "Geometry Closure and Aggremmasses" section of the "Black Hole Construct" derivative.) Amount Property : Two factors determine the amount of energy in an energy transducer : - The amount of space that is deformed. - The topological degree of the spatial deformation. Frequency Property : The oscillatory frequency of an energy transducer where applicable. Etc. Properties : End of the Energy Postulate. -- . -- When they are located for study, properties and their values may not be as neatly presented as the above list may suggest. For example, properties might be found in states of physical superimposition of multiple properties and/or values. Energy Transducer Alteration :
-- . -- Notice that the presented postulate structure suggests the possibility of an engineering leap in Man's abilities; i.e., a more direct manipulation of energy than we have ever possessed.
-- . -- The postulate does not yet seem to entirely match reality, and seems to need more work. All electromagnetic (including photonic) energies are still being considered each time that the writer gets a round tuit. For example, the marvelous crystal radios that we used in our childhood were permanently powered entirely by a piezoelectric crystal in each radio. Radio waves at each selected frequency elicited an electrical response from the crystal that was unique to that frequency. Thus, the energy of the electromagnetic wave was converted to local electricity of the same wave form by the crystal's piezoelectric mechanics. The author is currently considering the possibility of such cases being employment of an electromagnetic link internal to the energy postulate to perform remote actions. In this case, the energy at the radio station directly drove a remote acoustic device in the radio receiver through an electromagnetic link. Electrical energy was converted at the source into amplitude modulated electromagnetic waves that the target converted into variable electrical energy by the crystal to power an earplug. ( In 2023, about six years after beginning work on this "UCM", this logician-theorist came across the first and second laws of thermodynamics in a book on molecular & cellular biology. His hypothesis that energy can be neither created nor destroyed is supported.
-- . --
_____________________________ ( This section requires an understanding of the prior sections of this energy derivative.) Considering the vastness of the entire universe, the amount of energy needed to control its coherence and to transition into the "Great Expansion" segment in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) was so vast that it might have seemed infinite to us. That energy was introduced as a lump sum in the "Impetus Source" sub-section of the "Great Expansion" segment.
"Hypothesis 4" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) presents the space concept as something that has no explicit volume. Without an explicit volume and containing no matter, all of space could be folded flat with perfection in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), thereby allowing the entire nascent universe to exist without volume. So the hypothesis in the "Impetus Source" sub-section is that the universe began as super-folded contiguous space. Along with the flexibility that allowed super-folding and superfluid behavior, "Hypothesis 3, Corollary 2" of the "UGM" also specifies extreme rigidity. Since the universe was folded into perfect flat folds, that superfluidity-rigidity was the source of initial impetus energy when the universe was released to begin the "Great Expansion". Energy cannot be depleted or destroyed, but its use alters its properties and/or property values as described in the preceding "Description" section. Since space held and reacted to the "stressed elasticity" energy that was in it at the "Inception Advent", it was forced to immediately perform the many transducer property alteration operations after its first use. We know where matter appeared in the universal "causality chain" : It was at or near the "Inception Advent" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). As an event, the appearance of matter in the "Matter Source" segment also dictated that energy appeared slightly before that event.
( In 2023, about six years after beginning work on this "UCM", this logician-theorist came across the first and second laws of thermodynamics in a book on molecular & cellular biology. His hypothesis that energy can be neither created nor destroyed is supported therein.
-- . --
_____________________________ ( This section requires an understanding of the prior sections of this energy derivative.) The universal construct does not allow energy to ever disappear from the universe, and it cannot be exhausted. (See the "Universal Stability" and the "Universal Longevity Property" derivatives.) That which we perceive as disappearance or depletion is an illusion that is produced by its relocation and by the alteration of its transducer properties out of sight at the quantum physics level, as described in the previous "Description" section. For Example :
For the sake of brevity, that scenario is highly simplified ; it even leaves out some details of this "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). However, it provides a general idea of that which has been taking place in the universe.
-- . --
_____________________________ The "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) does not allow energy to ever disappear or be exhausted ; it only changes form and location, so after the vast compressive-expansive "Initial-Impetus" energy was used in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), it became available for storage and usage elsewhere. As specified in the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM", the evidence indicates that matter was created during the great expansion. It also shows that that matter was created as sub-atomic particles that were raised from the fabric of space. Energy for the great expansion seemed to diminish quickly after its emergence, and concomitant with that diminishment was the creation of matter across the universe, which required a vast amount of energy. There was no great energy-sink extant at that time other than matter creation, so that is strong evidence for the usage of that energy. Production :
Waste :
Radiant Transfer :
Chaotic Distribution :
( In 2023, about six years after beginning work on this "UCM", this logician-theorist came across the first and second laws of thermodynamics in a book on molecular & cellular biology. His hypothesis that energy can be neither created nor destroyed is supported.
-- . --
_____________________________ It might be beneficial to review the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) before reading this section. If you have not already red it, be aware that it alters our grasp of the universe. Scientists and science writers have been confused by gravity and spatial curvature since that curvature was first theorized in the nineteenth century. Some recently seem to be understanding better, so perhaps that is indicative of some impact by the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model). As explained in the "UGM" (universal gravity model), which is a component of the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), it is spatial curvature in which we are interested, and not gravity. Gravity is only our illusion, or the subjective perception of the results of spatial curvature by our limited senses. Since we have no word for the result of spatial curvature, the "gravity" word is sometimes used in this document to ease communication. Also, the "gravity" word may assist the student in tying this document into superceded legacy theories.
This section of the "Energy" derivative addresses how gravitation handles energy within the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) presented on this document. The massive structure that is identified as the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) is tested against every new piece of evidence as it comes in, and it has turned out to be amazingly consistent across billions of years and billions of parsecs. That internal consistency and structural strength will provide the foundation for this section. This section uses two bodies as teaching aids : the object and the source.
Notice that "Hypothesis 6" of the "UGM" imposes the universal "Speed Limit", 186,000 miles per second, on the propagation of all effects in a spatial curve. For example, if an object that is ten light years away from a source requires a change in the amount of energy that is locally available in the spatial curve, it will receive the affected response in twenty years. If the source is destroyed, then the local spatial curvature will disappear ten years later.
This "Gravitation" section draws from the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model) and from this "Energy" derivative. Before getting into energy transfer, note that the universal properties of energy include behavioral requirements for its transference or usage. See "Energy transducer Relocation" in the "Description Of Energy" section and the "Usage & Management" section of this derivative. For example, an energy transducer relocation requires alteration of its form (type of energy), which explains that part of gravitation behavior. Energy Transfer :
( This section used a lot of words to describe the simple event of a ball falling to the ground. But it replaced old concepts with new concepts to provide a better understanding of that old ball's action, and to support its analysis.)
-- . --
_____________________________ Theoretically, knowledge of the amount of energy needed to create the universe is available. As specified in the "Matter Hypothesis" section of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), we know that the energy, in ergs E, that was needed to raise each matter wave, in grams M, was approximately ( See also the "Relativity Problem" appendix, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) If we can estimate the amount of matter in the universe, then we can insert it into the equation to determine the amount of energy in the universe.
Of course, a problem that we immediately encounter is the fact that part of the universe is no longer visible due to its early expansion, and we do not know the mass of that part. (See that disappearance addressed in the "Dark Energy" segment.) However, the detailed Spitzer graph may also account for that missing mass because the graph is not of extant solar masses, but of the creation of solar masses in the form of stars as a "Temporal" function.
Another problem for that calculation is the process waste that was mentioned in the previous "Disposition" section. However, the "CMB" has been extensively studied, so regressive calculation to its original radiative energy may make it possible to include the original process waste energy. Finally, the virgin matter remaining in gas clouds and that in molecular clouds would need to be estimated. You will find that there are cosmologists who make careers of studying those values. So it may be possible to calculate the amount of energy that was present when the universe was formed. All of that energy was active in the formation, beginning with the "Great Expansion". Surely, there are scientists who do that sort of thing, but if not, many people in various specialties would appreciate your research. Especially so if your totals were accompanied by analysis details. ( Beware of the "Geometry Closure and Aggremmasses" conjecture section of the "Black Hole Construct" derivative. You must decide whether or not it is valid. If it is valid and unaccounted for, then it will significantly impact your calculation validity. Neither this document nor the Spitzer observations calculate or account for it, but notice the suggested "ball-park" mass estimate in that section.)
-- . --
________________________________ It appears that all of the universe (i.e., all space, energy, matter, and possibly impetus) that exists today was created in the inception as presented by the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and that it has changed only in form and spatial relation as driven by the original composition and geometry. This is in consonance with "Postulate 1" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model). That postulate posits the universality of the spatial matrix, and specifies that neither energy nor matter can exist without that supporting matrix.
-- . --
________________________________ The universe may be self-cleaning. See the "Matter Source" hypothesis in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). That hypothesis proposes the creation of matter at the sub-atomic level by energetic events with an energy of ( See also the "Formula Problem" appendix, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) Based upon evidence found by the Ligo apparatus and analyzed in the "Soliton Support" derivative, the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) describes the matter wave form as a "Soliton". If correct, so that matter is indeed matter wave forms, solitons, then that raises the possibility of longevity as a property of the soliton's universal construct. Hypothesis :
One might speculate that the collapse of a soliton in any medium will release both the raised medium and the energy that raised and maintained it. We would expect that collapse event to be manifested as a disturbance in the medium; i.e., medium disturbance waves that emanate from the former soliton locus. In the case of matter, the collapse would release the energy and space that composed the matter wave form, which could be considerable. (For more discussion, see the "Matter Wave Form Collapse" derivative.) The subject is made even more academically interesting by the approximate universal simultaneity of matter creation. (See that discussion in the Inception Model's "Inception Duration" segment.) Value Assignment :
( A serious problem was exposed in that famous E=M(C^2) formula by the "Nature Of Time" assessment, so until it is fixed or replaced, it is used here with its undefined value converted to a constant. That constant can be 186,000 imperial or 299,329.8 metric units, depending upon your preferred units of measure in the equation.)
-- . --
________________________________ Table Of Contents Of Spatial Translation
This derivative is currently only a tentative thought that is under consideration.
_____________________________ The Ligo apparatus provides proof that space supports solitons as hypothesized by the "Universal Gravity Model". (See the "Soliton" derivative.) Ligo is demonstrating the relocation of three-dimensional solitons in space across billions of light-years. Implicit in that information is the fact that those detected solitons maintained entity integrity for billions of years. A soliton is, by "Definition", a durable standing wave as first observed in water, so let us consider the characteristics of that first observed soliton as a generalized standing wave in a generalized medium. That wave did not physically advance since the medium did not physically advance, but that soliton was observed to continually translate spatially as an unchanged entity within its medium for, perhaps, a half mile. With those observations in hand, let us suggest that a soliton in any medium does not physically move, but is spatially translated within the medium. In ordinary conversation, we may continue to say that it moves, but maybe this observation will give us a better handle on its reality.
Let us now remind ourselves of that which we are addressing. In the "Matter Source" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), matter is hypothesized as a quantum wave event in the inception. It was a particular kind of wave known in quantum mechanics as a "matter wave form" that was raised from space. It is a standing wave, a soliton, that we collapse today in "Nuclear Devices" to release the energy that raised it. Since the matter wave form was raised at the sub-atomic level, any mass is a vast and coherent collection of solitons; coherent in the sense that it evinces a coherent object to classical physics.
-- . --
_____________________________ Doubts :
Conjecture :
Succinctly :
Distance :
Impulse Energy :
Impulse Vector :
Mass Vector :
Instantiation :
-- . --
_____________________________ If the conjecture becomes adjudged worthy of hypothesis, then : Integration Expansion :
Universal Speed Limit Source :
( This does not necessarily mean that the author certainly "believes in" the speed limit. Please see the speed limit belief in the "Speed Limit Problem" appendix.) Complexity :
-- . -- Doubts :
-- . --
________________________________ The "Theory Derivatives" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, 2018-2021 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
You can click here to obtain contact information.
-- . --
________________________________
The size and complexity of physics theory on this document is so great that thos date table can no longer be maintained. Please refer to dates in each local subject header such as the above.
A casualty of working alone, the first derivative publication date was not saved, and is thought to have been in December of 2018. However, some derivatives were previously published within other "Major Topics" and consolidated later under this rubric. ( The "CoreDate" protocol is used for its self-sort, system friendliness, and other features.)
-- . --
End of Physics Theory Derivatives. __________________________________________________
Miscellaneous Theory
Or press {alt left-arrow} for previous text.
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents.
________________________________ The author stopped working on faster-than-light travel years ago. He was working on it one day and happened to consider the nature and character of Man. If FTLT became possible, then the universe would be assaulted by the rutting and by the spiritual and psychological filth of the "Communist Chinese", "Moslems", and American "Commucrat Tyrants". It saddened this writer, but releasing the immorality, deceit, egocentricity, and shallow intellect of Man upon God's universe would sadden him more. Hopefully, FTLT is as impossible as scientists have been telling us, so maybe it is not a real thing that others might find. ( Since this is only a personal observation, it is probably flawed. But it appears to this writer that, if he created another semi-intelligent life form to achieve his goal, then it too must eventually descend to the American "Commucrat Tyrants" level, so it might be a bit of fun to watch.)
(( Glory be to God and to his Christ.))
-- . --
__________________________________________________
Basic System Theory
System Theory Contents
-- . --
________________________________ System theory goes far beyond the little that is presented here. Every system and every type of system mentioned below requires years, and sometimes decades, of study to understand. Hopefully, the following will be enough to prepare for a short discussion.
-- . --
_____________________________ A system is a group of persistently interacting elements, and it is identifiable as an entity that has persisted long enough to be identified and studied. To the uninitiated, systems are obvious and are energetically acting dynamic entities, but an engineer driving across a bridge is acutely aware that that great and silent bridge is a mass of forces that quietly war for many years within parameters set by its designer; a system. The primary characteristic of a system is that it is obviously an entity. It can be rigorously defined as an entity, and can be observed as an entity. (Maybe that is too philosophical for most of us, but the failure of Man in many areas throughout history has started with his failure to address the foundation of his reality.) We tend to think of systems as physical entities because the physical world impacts each human first and most deeply. That conception is alright because that was, and will always be, our link to reality. But its exclusivity is incorrect. A system may be :
The elements, components, of a system may be physical, energy, a mixture thereof, or potentials thereof. For example, the human body is a complex system, and the sun is a very large, powerful, and simple system. Usually, the scientist will include in the system's description its dependence upon constituent elements for its continued existence, but that is not a strict requirement of the definition. System descriptions sometimes include delimitations and delimiters when they are not obvious or when they are interesting of themselves. For example, what kept the great gulf stream within its watery banks century after century ? What marks the limit of the solar system ? Systems are identifiable within nearly all fields of study such as sociology, geopolitics, psychology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc., ad infinitum. Students within each field name and define their specialized modeling tools. Social systems are interesting to other fields because those powerful systems are frequently without physical form. ( To the scientist, a group of people is always a system, or systems, that is/are either functioning or latent.
-- . --
_____________________________ A system may contain, or be entirely composed of, identifiable functioning sub-systems. The mammalian body is an example of a system with many sub-systems that are part of the major system. Large social cultures usually contain many sub-cultures that vary in functionality and disfunctionality. A sub-system must be a functional constituent of the master system. For example, the heart is certainly a sub-system of a mammalian body. A parasitic worm is not a sub-system, despite the worm's opinion. Sub-systems may be questionable such as cancer in a person and invasive cultures in America.
-- . --
_____________________________ The state of a system is a snapshot description of its characteristics relative to its surroundings, to its past states, and perhaps to its projected or expected states. The sun may be spotless today, but that is noted in its state primarily because it has usually been spotted in the past.
State-Space The state-space is a concept that includes multiple states. It might be all states, or a sub-set thereof. You will find in the scientific literature that a state-space may be all of the recorded states, but it is sometimes used to mean all of the potential states, or a sub-group thereof. Theorists will sometimes investigate a theoretical state-space based upon data generated by the hard-working empiricist scientists. State spaces may also include state-space paths. Such a path is generated by conceptually and "Temporally" linked state-spaces. In computer science, while the AxleBase computer system was being developed, its state-spaces were extensively investigated because it was a new kind of system that pushed the scientific frontier. There were state-spaces for its communications, its query activity, its configuration as a standard database manager, its configuration as a super-system, etc. That is the kind of system complexity that scientists investigate. In that case, it was a search for unexpected anomalous behavior in some distant corner of a state-space, and sometimes resulted in design and engineering changes. An interesting use of state-space was presented in "American Scientist" wherein Prof. Tantillo conceptually constructed an abstracted chemical reaction as a system and plotted its multi-dimensional state-space path as a means of understanding the complexity of its evolution. It turned out that, like genomics, physical topology and molecular motion have unexpected and inordinate affects on state space paths of chemical reactions. (*ref. Source: "American Scentist" Jan-Feb 2019, pp. 22-25, by Prof. Dean Tantillo.) ( For a mathephobe, such as this one, a recent encounter with the astronomers' equation of state concept was deeply unsettling, but it suggested interesting applications in the computer science of advanced computer systems.
-- . --
_____________________________ For most of us, a choppy sea is the epitome of chaos. A state of chaos is indescribable, incomprehensible, and unpredictable messiness. However, scientists began microscopic study of system states in the latter part of the twentieth century, and developed a different perspective on chaos. They found that a close examination of a state of chaos in a system sometimes reveals an ordered state wherein the complexity is so great that it appears chaotic to casual observation. In other words, a system may appear chaotic to us only because the system complexity exceeds our ability to grasp it. Some stable systems include chaotic behavior in their morphology. It may be visible as slight behavioral perturbations, or it may be hidden within Profound complexity. That area of chaos is, in some systems, where state changes arise. The manifestation of chaos in systems that have a history of calmness is sometimes a signal that a complex system is preparing for a major state change. ( Click here for "Entropy". ) ( This author suspects that true chaos may not be part of reality, but he also suspects that that suspicion arises from his personal spiritual factors.)
-- . --
_____________________________ The behavior of some systems is extremely predictable, and they are known as linear systems. Linear behavior moves in an obvious manner and direction, and is predictable in discrete quantities along the entire abstracted state space path. Regardless of a system's apparent complexity, if it can be described by linear equations, then it is probably understandable and imminently predictable. If, however, even one non-linear equation must be used to describe that behavior, then it is non-linear. Regardless of appearances and history, that system is complex. An example is bridge engineering. For the engineer, a bridge is not static. It is a mass of interacting forces for which he must account in his design. Most of those forces are either linear, can be treated as such, or can be forced into linear behavior. But non-linear factors sometimes surprise the engineer from unforeseen sources, and we watch in awe and wonder as one of our new bridges behaves as a living thing while it destroys itself. Chaos is, generally speaking, non-linear behavior. But the two are separated here because there is a difference; a difference so subtle and important that it is nearly philosophical. Which, again, brings engineers to mind. Engineers are generally so strongly oriented toward the practical that they find philosophy of little interest. However, it is easy to see engineering philosophy in action. Just open a "coffee table" book of bridges to see how engineers have addressed non-linear behavior. The early Roman engineer knew that he was ignorant, so he compensated by over-building with massive stone-works. Today's engineer bets on his knowledge and a stable environment to allow beautiful wispy architecture and to alter the cost/benefit ratio. ( An interesting engineering philosophy was created by Gothic engineering in Europe. Developed in an intellectually dark period of civilization, its beautiful flying buttresses seem to deny reality in their tons of delicate stonework that have soared for centuries. They are understandable only when one realizes that they were designed and built by men of faith who flaunted the power of the world in their soaring stoneworks. And that beauty has now met the destructive hatred of kindred Islam, femalism, and socialism.) Engineering philosophy could also be seen in the classroom. In the time before small computers, when he took us to the Moon, the engineer could calculate to many decimal places by hand with three incised wooden sticks known as a sliderule. So he was immediately and personally confronted by the problem of the non-linear equation. He was taught to ignore and round off that small value as an aberration and get on with the work. Conversely, today's engineering student has the luxury of being made aware of that which he rounds off because of its potential importance. ( "American Scientist" (Not "Scientific American.") carries an excellent and entertaining synopsis of the challenge of bridge engineering written by an accomplished veteran.
-- . --
_____________________________ A complex system is one that contains many persistently interacting elements, or one whose elements have complex operations and/or interactions. Such systems can be so complex that their comprehension by the scientist is difficult even with the help of computers. An example of complex systems is the human mind. An interesting example is the human heart. The heart superficially appears so simplistic that we learn its parts in childhood, but its operation complexity is so great that healthy hearts sometimes destroy their own operation. Hidden within its operation patterns was found complexity that made some researchers wonder that the heart operates at all.
-- . -- There are numerous fine books about complexity and chaos in systems. Two that the author found enjoyable and informative enough to be worth reading repeatedly over the past decades are:
-- . --
_____________________________ Which brings us to our goal in this discussion, and to the especially interesting topic of "state changes". As suggested by the above discussion, a system may transition from state to state. Some even remain in a super-state of continual state transitions. Meteorology is study of a sub-system that is in a state of continual state transitions, and which is a sub-system of the larger and more stable climate system. A system's state transitions may be predictable. Some systems are highly predictable, such as the linear systems. A modern computer system, for example, regardless of its complexity, is so predictable that even the slightest unplanned state change draws immediate corrective engineering attention to it. Some complex systems are approximately predictable. Non-linear systems are never absolutely predictable, but are frequently approximately predictable. Frequently, those are studied and controlled with methods resembling those of quantum physics. Some systems are so large, complex, and non-linear that they are beyond understanding by us and by our machines. We can learn enough about one of them to approximately predict its behavior about as well as we can predict the behavior of a dice game: Poorly. ( During the computer revolution, when everything that we did was experimental, this writer was tasked with building a system on an unattended desktop computer that would enter a mainframe computer system every night, to tell the mainframe to generate a special dataset for it.
( Full size models are impossible in astrophysics, so after decades of working on a model of super novae, astrophysicist Kevin Heng developed validation methodology for small computerized models that can be used in all science disciplines. An application of his method in computer science can be seen in Scaling And Model Hierarchy Validation for "AxleBase" on this web site.) (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", May-Jun 2014, pp. 174-177 by Kevin Heng)
-- . --
_____________________________ One of the first important lessons learned about computer systems by this logician-theorist concerned system failures. He noticed that the weakest or most vulnerable parts of a computer system are in or associated with the system's interfaces. Therefore, if an error occures in a system after it is solid enough to go on line in a production environment, then this man first anaylyzes activity in or near external interfaces.
Definition Of Interface :
Interface Types :
System Types :
See also the "Comm. Protocol" description on this web site that addresses a few of the difficulties of computer system interaction.
-- . --
_____________________________ Homeostasis is the maintenance of self by a system. It usually refers to the maintenance of the internal state of the system. It is part of the study of the system, although that part is sometimes implicit and thereby hidden in published studies. Even well-designed computer systems include homeostasis. See the little computer system in the previous "Transitions" section. The homeostatic efficacy of a system can range from billions of years to a split second. Its scale can be from an amoeba to a galaxy cluster. Homeostasis is frequently dependent upon external factors. For example, mammals are heavily dependent upon the stability of the ocean of oxygen in which they live. In most cases, a description of a system includes its impacting external factors. The design of the universe is such that systems are ubiquitous. Its construct is a naturally driven system producer, and its design simultaneously attacks those same systems. Those two factors give to us an environmentally Profound Richness of being, without which, our lives would be Profoundly boring. Of special interest to the student of a system are the internal elements and sub-systems that maintain its integrity and identity against external forces. Interestingly, a small system's homeostasis (e.g., the human body) can sometimes be more complex than that of a giant system (e.g., a star). Because most human beans understand neither the process that we call science nor scientists, scientists are reluctant to tell you that a system may be so large and complex that its homeostasis is nearly impossible to understand. Models of such are constructed and inserted into computer systems for study. But contrary to our superstitious belief in computers, just being in a computer does not make the model correct. Being in a computer may make the model subject to study, correction, and expansion. But the system may remain nearly impossible for a human to understand in toto, leaving even the model in question. Such is the nature of complex system-study.
-- . --
_____________________________ The culture concept here is the anthropological culture concept. There is a danger that social scientists may disagree with this, and may disagree vehemently, but this writer views cultures as systems. They can be viewed as collections of static elements, but even the simplest healthy culture is a dynamic entity that functions to
The thousands of cultures studied around the world in past centuries taught us that the culture entity is complex. Studying each one was a challenge, for which the social scientist developed tools. One of those tools was the cross cultural analysis technique. That technique involved comparative analysis wherein the investigator applied knowledge of previously studied cultures to the target culture; not only in a fact catalogue, but in the manner in which each culture achieved goals and solved problems. So it was extremely interesting to find planetary scientists applying the same technique to the study of a recalcitrant planet, Venus. Venus is enticing because its basic statistics almost describe Earth, but its system has somehow deviated into a very different condition. And its climate extremes resist gathering descriptive data. Therefore, while trying to gather more data, planetary scientists are employing a technique similar to cross cultural analysis, using Earth in an effort to understand the Venusian system. (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 109, Jan-Feb 2021, pp. 30-37, "Unveiling Earth's Wayward Twin" by Prof. Paul Byrne))
-- . --
_____________________________ ( Thus far, as far as the author knows, there has not been focused study of the system as a generalized conceptual abstraction with the concomitant generation of general system feature maps, laws, and theory. He expects that such study would be of immense benefit to Man, influencing thought in disparate fields, inciting philosophical consideration of their foundations, and maybe itself becoming interesting as a foundational abstraction. Perhaps especially interesting if it brushed aside Man's many system constructs to present a universal construct with interesting details such as the soliton. A universal construct might create additional benefits such as a universal system classification, and a system morphology.)
-- . --
_____________________________ System theory is applicable in nearly every field of endeavor, in simple and complex usages. The following is abstracted from "An Investigative Technique" of the "UCM"(Universal Construct Model) "Empirical Support" in the "Physics Theory Derivatives" To insure that it is not lost from this reference by alterations of the original, nearly the entire section is copied below. In this case, various systems and sub-systems are abstracted from reality, and expressed in the computer system to allow their manipulation and study. Reference follows. The author has sometimes found it useful to think of a research matter as a signal stream. In his theoretical work in computer science, he found it helpful to conceptualize data as a signal even when it was merely setting on a storage device. That signal can traverse temporal, spatial, and conceptual chasms without remark. ( Actually, if you can wrap your head around it, he conceptually cast all of reality as a signal stream so that data, storage devices, computers, error sources, etc. were signal streams feeding the trunk signal that was the giant distributed computer system. He would have been otherwise incapable of maintaining control of the development of the great "AxleBase" computer system. The signal analogy became part of the system design. For example, an anomalous event or failure in the thousands of components, systems, computers, networks, etc. was simply a signal that was automatically traced by the system to its source for correction.) If the researcher uses that technique here, then the complexity of the many-faceted expansion of the universe may become an amalgamation of many signals into the single observed trunk signal, which may simplify the conceptual investigation of the confusingly varying primary signal that we observe. Looked at in reverse, today's universe is an expression of that trunk signal. If that works for you, then the subject that varies across billions of years, billions of parsecs, and many complex variables will remain complex, but should be amenable to manipulation, simple separation, and discrete presentation in various formats to ease observation and study. For example, the difference between two temporally adjacent spatial topologies might be understood by tracing and inspecting the way the component signals have changed. ( A Project :
-- . --
_____________________________ An Actual Application follows. Complex systems do not only arise in nature, but can arise in man-made systems. Their occurance may be accidental or by intent. For example, the "AxleBase" computer system is designed to manage very large data stores. After more than a decade of development, it was internally complex. In addition to that complexity, its Database Administrator was given the ability to create very large and extremely complex world-wide distributed databases and autonomous distributed AxleBase systems. (See the "Operation Manual".) Those and other factors set the stage for the appearance of unexpected and uncontrolled complex behavior in the system. Therefore, safeguards were built into the AxleBase system that are designed to react to and defeat such behavior. An Event. During the 2022/2023 Christmas season, the nation-wide control system of Southwest Airlines experienced an anomolus event that cascaded into a system-wide and nation-wide failure. As they began the cleanup, the Democrat-In-Charge announced that the problem was a corrupt data-table. Nonsense. (That gave a chuckle to some of us.) It was obvious that the DIC had little knowledge of complex systems. The event source may or may not have been a corrupt data-table, but the real problem was probably global system design and an incompetent DIC, which allowed the uncontrolled development of complex system behavior in a great system, thereby resulting in its enevitable collapse. That will always be the result of uncontrolled development of complex system behavior in large man-made systems unless it bumps into an abberant offloader. ALWAYS. Unless the system designer follows the "AxleBase" example, and the system has a competent manager who is aware of complex systems.
-- . --
_____________________________ After not looking at it for some months, updating the above "Homeostasis" section reminded the author that he is smitten by the Profound beauty of the universe. Surely, that will irritate some readers, so the author apologizes to you, but will not recant. It is hard for some of us to always be dispassionately scientific in the face of so much great and Profound beauty that is revealed by science. It is the opinion of this writer that the Creator intentionally exposed his created secrets to encourage his children to look deeper by using the mind that he designed and gave to them. ( For Christians Only :
-- . --
End of System Theory. Contents Of
End of Climate Theory contents.
________________________________ Climate theory was permanently removed 20230825. Leaders of the Marxist "Commucrats" have been using it in their partial truths for too long, and their followers are too ignorant to realize it. And , of course, the Marxists, befitting their character, were not even rendering credit to this source.
Chernobyl : For a dramatic example of Socialism's affect upon science, see the "Chernobyl" disaster in the "Totalitarian Morality" notes, and the "Science Danger" sections on this web site. End of Climate Theory. __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
________________________________ The author began assessing a foundation for AI back in the nineties. Not the pretense, but genuine artificial intelligence. His interest in linguistics and information theory indicated to him that his approach seemed to have fundamental merit. Additionally, it promised great fun and intellectual stimulation regardless of outcome. Shortly after the turn of the century, cautionary warnings about AI research were presented to amateur scientists on this web site. See the "Advanced Research Ideas" segment of the "Amateur Scientists" page on this web site.
You will recognize that one problem that is addressed on that page has a potential for severe problems in AI technology. Its extreme severity will arise from the fact that it will remain hidden until it strikes, and the nature of AI will continue to hide it from all but the most strenuous analysis. I see no solution for it at our current level of technological sophistication. Its only cure will be the destruction of all instances of that misbehaving computer code. (See also the unqualified declaration below.) First, let us be realistic. When not employed, this writer worked seven days a week, for more than ten years to build "AxleBase" ; it becoming operational in 2015. There is simply not enough time for him to do all that he would like to do. But that is not the only reason. The years dragged by and he continued wondering why he had not started designing and coding AI, especially since the construction of "AxleBase" had delivered a critical and major part of it. After nearly thirty years, he has been allowed to see why on this day (20210927):
(Note that that declaration is without qualification.) For an example of complex system crashes see the "Event" within the "Application" section of the "System Theory" topic on this document. This is recognition and not surrender to the problem. For example, see the "Documentation" for "AxleBase", which contains nearly a half million words. In more than ten years of around-the-clock "Stress Testing" , that included building and using a data table of 100,000,000,000 rows , as far as can be determined , AxleBase has never crashed. But this logician-theorist firmly stands by the above declaration and its crash example. 5. For a solid theoretical foundation for these warnings, see also the "Incompleteness Theorem", and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) So, unless he feels spiritually guided to do otherwise, this logician-theorist and former software engineer will not work on AI. ( As stated elsewhere, he has frequently felt strongly that he has been guided, and this is an example. Note that AxleBase was completed years before the "Commucrats" gained power over our nation, but he did not jump on the AI project.) (( Glory be to God, and to his Christ.))
(*ref. : "Astronomy", July 2023, pp 36-43, "Astronomy's AI Assisted Future" by Ashley Spindler.)
-- . --
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents. Contents Of The Data Analysis Expansion
End of the Data Analysis Expansion contents.
________________________________ This is a consideration and analysis of data as a phenomenon, with the addition of a new classification system to our tools, and a new class of data that has arisen from the "AxleBase" project in the computer science field. The "AxleBase" database manager analyzes data to determine its datatype, and then selects an index type before building the index, so stress testing him has been difficult because he shrugs off most stresses that were envisioned. The concept of data morphology models was developed in the AxleBase lab to investigate and solve the new problems created by the VLTs (Very Large Tables) that AxleBase can create. A data morphology is not the same as the more familiar datatype; the datatype is a component of each data morphology. Shannon Data is one of those morphologies. (See the following discussion in the "Shannon Data" segment) Shannon Data is named after the Shannon Limit, which specifies the maximum amount of information that a data stream can contain, and was discovered by Doctor Claude Shannon of American Bell Labs. Maximum information looks like perfect noise because every bit is independent of all other bits in the stream. At the other extreme are common data tables. For example, data managed by phone companies contains little information. It is so easily managed that, using only a few desktop computers, AxleBase can find your name out of the entire world faster than you can type it. (See the Very Large query tests on the AxleBase Tests document. ) AxleBase is so powerful that the Shannon data model was created solely to stress and test AxleBase. It is a homogeneous dataset that appears amorphous, which is extremely difficult for any database manager to organize and search at high speed. ( Is the AxleBase power actually that much of a problem, or might it be exaggerated by its builder ? In answer, please consider the comparison of AxleBase to the pride of the Google corporation, their Dremel database manager. At that time, before AxleBase development was ended, AxleBase was 4,000 times faster than Google's Dremel. ( Click here to see the technical comparison.))
-- . --
________________________________ ( A column of Shannon Data in the AxleBase lab is defined to the database manager as an ordinary alpha datatype.) 1. Randomness:
( Randomness For Scientists:
2. Amplitude:
3. Group obfuscation:
4. Datatype:
5. Column size:
6. Table size:
These operations made the data as hard as possible to query while allowing it to contain discernable information. Even building an index of that data takes longer than does other data. This is an actual field of Shannon data in a row of the very large test table : s87787485790154
-- . --
________________________________ 1. To stress and slow AxleBase.
2. To simulate conditions that will be encountered only in exabyte-size tables and relational type VLDBs(very large databases).
-- . --
________________________________ Very large indexed datasets become sensitive to the data population distribution curves. The logical (as opposed to physical) location of a value within a very large dataset's distribution curve has an inordinate impact on performance. If the value is near the curve's center, the query becomes very slow, and if it is outside three standard deviations, the return is instantaneous, even from billions of rows on old desktop computers. So, since few understand these many aspects of data management, which test values should be reported in the test document ? Knowing that the values would always be compared to those of dishonest people, the author wrestled with that question off and on for years.
-- . --
________________________________ AxleBase found ordinary indexed string data in eighty billion rows within seconds, but a query of the indexed Shannon Test column sometimes ran for hours. That difference validated the creation and usage of Shannon data in tests. ( Eighty billion rows were used because the test table, which took years to build, had not yet attained the hundred-billion-size.) That was so unbelievable that a value that did not start with the letter "s" and was entirely alpha characters was inserted into the physical middle of the table. The morphological model location of that value was on the perimeter of that Shannon set, outside three standard deviations, despite being physically buried in billions of rows. The query time for that value changed from hours to twelve seconds. That and other tests of the Shannon Data construct has validated it repeatedly. However, and maybe unfortunately, subsequent research developed the new index described in the next segment. It is hundreds of times faster than the old one. It changes everything for AxleBase-class database managers. Notice the raw VLT test results on the "Performance" document. A quick glance shows that queries of Shannon Data were far slower than were those of standard alpha and numeric data.
-- . --
________________________________ Research discovered an index in 2014 that appears to have conquered even Shannon data. This is not an entirely good thing because AxleBase performance is embarrassingly hard to believe. It gives mainframe-speed to desktop computers. As reported in the VLT(very large table) test results of the performance document, queries of a hundred billion rows now run in seconds on desktop computers that were built in the previous century. ( That index technology is beautifully complex, and working on its theory and code was like crafting a fine watch. It makes one sad to think of it dying on the shelf, but the author absolutely refuses to give it away.)
-- . --
________________________________ Copyright 2014-2023 John Ragan "A Data Analysis Expansion" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was February 1, 2014. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 20140201. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, February 1, 2014 with revisions, or 20140201 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
You can click here to obtain contact information.
-- . -- End of the Data Analysis Expansion.
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents. Contents Of The Data Limit Conjecture
End of the Data Limit Conjecture contents.
________________________________ This is a scientific conjecture for computer scientists. It offers no practical application. This conjecture is based upon the "AxleBase" database manager . Research and development of AxleBase were stopped in 2015 after a decade of development and testing, because there appeared to be no detectable Professional or academic interest in the project. This segment was added years later, after the builder overcame much of his disappointment, to share the fun of some of the intellectual stimulation that he enjoyed through the years of work.
-- . -- ( If you doubt AxleBase claims, then you agree with its builder. He has doubted his own published numbers since development began, and he has run countless re-tests in disbelief. He is still amazed and incredulous years after AxleBase queried a hundred-Billion-row table on scrapped turn-of-the-century computers in less than three seconds.
-- . --
________________________________ ( This conjecture uses only commodity desktop computer systems because that is what AxleBase was built for.) This conjecture is based upon the "AxleBase" database manager. Research and development of AxleBase were stopped in 2015. This is important. AxleBase is a relational database management system (RDBMS).
The following assumes that AxleBase will continue to be run on commodity desktop computers with mechanical disk drives. He can run on faster machines, but his awesome power and milestone-setting speed on slow machines demonstrate the power of Professional and conscientious design and coding. Having no expert advice and no source from which to copy, forced the design of AxleBase to be based on theory that was constructed for the AxleBase project. Since the theory addressed an unlimited dataset, the data storage and management limits of AxleBase were arbitrarily selected and imposed. Near the turn of the millennium, when a billion-row table on a desktop computer was unthinkable, a number was selected that appeared to be very large, but was limited to that which might be believable for the masses of data Professionals. The code was made to conform to that limit, and years of tests have supported it. That arbitrarily chosen limit per table was
The AxleBase architecture, however, remained unchanged and based on theory. That theory was developed by the builder as a general projection of how data could be stored and managed by a computer system. That means that the AxleBase architecture can theoretically handle far more than the arbitrarily chosen limit. A couple of caveats must be noted. One concerns the ability of the programming language, and the other is the ability of the operating system. AxleBase already stresses local computer systems. And simple things such as the maximum of any number that a language or CPU can handle can be limiting. But those cannot be explored since AxleBase research has ceased, so we will proceed with this conjecture addressing only the existing architecture. Let us also explicitly point out that the code was designed and written for the arbitrarily chosen limit. Therefore, we are primarily addressing the power and benefit of the architecture's design, knowing that some of the code would need to be rewritten to accomplish that.
-- . --
________________________________ The change would be conceptually simple. AxleBase creates and manages many files. For example, one single table that was built for tests has 38,000 files, all of which are used in every query. The names of those files are currently limited to ten characters that are digits, which imposes the current data limit. The proposal, then, is to add six digits to those names for a total of sixteen characters to attain the new boundary by allowing more files per table. ( The same expansion could explode beyond the googol range just by changing the ten digits to alpha characters. But that would require additional code changes, because file names are sometimes used as numbers by AxleBase for various internal purposes.) Let us explicitly note that the actual limit of the science and of the architecture's design is such a large number that it can be identified only through protracted research with the database manager. But, based upon the builder's familiarity with the science, engineering, and fifteen years of progressive linear behavior of AxleBase, the builder believes that a valid limit can be estimated.
With those factors in mind, the builder estimates that the actual limit of the AxleBase architecture is a million times bigger than the published limit or approximately
( File Size :
Let us return to the conjecture's twenty yottabyte objective.
-- . --
________________________________
_____________________________ -- . -- Since the conjecture proposes a phenomenally large dataset, the following comments address the speed that may be expected from the system under such a burden. Could it even be used ? To make the situation understandable, these comments assume the same type of hardware and the same hardware to data ratio in the proposed table that prevailed for the published tests. For a system as large and complex as is AxleBase and for very large tables (VLT), the operating speed attribute and the job duration attribute must be addressed separately. Also, AxleBase offers the DBA two very different system configurations, each of which must be addressed separately. For ordinary databases, it can be configured as a standard database manager as built by Oracle, Microsoft, etc., or for very large databases it can be configured as an axsys super-system. -- . -- - Operating Speed : Operating speed in the standard database manager configuration is expected to remain approximately the same because of the way the advanced AxleBase indices function, and because the code and architecture are already designed to allow each of a table's indices to grow indefinitely. A slight degradation of absolute speed is expected, but not enough to notice.
-- . -- - Operating Speed : The super-system's internal architecture was designed from the ground up for extreme scaling. The impact of extreme scaling will be seen primarily in the load on the network and on the central axsys controller, but not on job performance.
-- . -- The above discussion is applicable to all with some slight variations. ( Yes, this is unbelievable, but the author can state no less than what he knows about the architecture and what years of testing indicate.)
-- . --
_____________________________ The impact of the code changes on the size of AxleBase depends upon the new code design and upon the quality of the coders. With the same amount of Professional and conscientious care, the above changes in the AxleBase "exe" might hardly be noticed and it might stay under one megabyte. However, the engineering problems addressed under the following "caveats" might increase it considerably.
-- . --
_____________________________ -- . -- Since we cannot truly grasp the above number, let us remind ourselves that the currently published limit is already a gargantuan amount of data. What we describe above would be a million of those gargantuan tables in a single table. It is beyond human comprehension. It might contain all the stars of the visible universe. (A trillion galaxies times a hundred billion stars.) And that is for each table in a relational database of many tables. If well-designed, such a database might approach the size of the entire terrestrial genome.
-- . -- In its axsys super-system configuration, AxleBase was designed to be more robust than the hardware, operating system, and network upon which it ran. It can even replace failed computers and nodes while monitoring and insuring the data integrity of running queries. Depending on how the DBA configures the system, it could require trillions of desktop computers, or their equivalent, per table. Given an ascertainable standard hardware failure rate, the internal error handling sub-system was not designed to handle the failure rate of that much hardware, and would require extensive additional research, design, and development. Similar objections might be found in other AxleBase management sub-systems.
-- . -- Tables can be joined "on the fly" in relational databases. You might, for example, tell AxleBase to return a dataset in which all type Os in the star table are joined with their locations in the location table where the location row contains the Andromeda galaxy. That would be a simple join and dataset return for any main-stream database manager. However the sheer size alone of the tables proposed in this conjecture would overwhelm hardware, networks, and most relational database managers. AxleBase, however, is designed to handle that kind of load, even compensating for hardware shortcomings. He handles normal data loads like any database manager, but his internal design allows each query to be designed to segment input tables horizontally, assemble interim datasets, segment the growing dataset between computers, and incrementally return a massive dataset. It would be difficult to create a table join that was impossible for AxleBase. AxleBase and his queries can even be configured to guarantee valid query returns from the other side of the solar system.
-- . --
_____________________________ Although the use of trillions of computers in a single table might be unrealistic, remember that this is a scientific conjecture concerning conceptual limits of current relational database science, and is not an engineering assessment of practical matters. (Besides, that insane thought is nothing compared to the ridiculous idea in 2003 that one man might build such a system.) Most large databases cited today are large merely because they contain photographs or other BLOB objects that can be managed with a simple spreadsheet. What the computer scientist studies in this document is discrete and identifiable data that is harvested from those photos for storage in a true randomly accessible database. The point is that database computer science was sufficiently advanced in 2015 to be comparable to the entire natural universe. Whatever research-grade relational database that Man might need and can afford, conjecture based upon AxleBase demonstrates that it may be deliverable now. ( It is important to note that this power comes from software running on scrapped turn-of-the-century desktop computers, and not from a billion dollar NSA government machine.
-- . --
________________________________ Experimentally evaluating the conjecture may be costly. This proposal might offer a way to approach that evaluation in a stepped manner with each step offering or denying support for project continuation.
Test 2 : It might be possible to virtually test (2) the feasibility of the conjecture concept. AxleBase is designed to present alternative solutions to unforeseen problems. In this case, one might consider the AxleBase ability to virtualize data objects from outside the database. The virtualization mechanism also allows concatenation of objects to create a virtual table that consists of many remote objects. There is no limit on the size or quantity of external objects that can be locally actualized in a concatenated virtual table. One might, therefore, consider setting up identical tables in many remotely located databases, to which their DBAs would grant virtualization access. The data would be inserted into them. An identical, but virtual, table would be set up in the primary database. It would contain no data, but would be configured to virtually concatenate the remote tables. As the remote tables continued to grow, the virtual table would virtually grow at a rate that would be the sum of the remote rates. But is that virtualization test feasible ? Although possibly cheaper than a direct test of the conjecture, it would cost a great deal. Therefore a smaller test (1) might first be run to ascertain the virtualization (2) feasibility. Test 1 : To test (1) the feasibility of the virtualization idea (2), the existing VLT (Very Large Table) could be brought back on line in the AxleBase lab if enough computers are still functional and if the table is not lost. It is a VLT because it contains eight terabytes of data in one hundred billion rows. That table could be virtually concatenated a thousand times into a single virtual table of 100 trillion rows of eight petabytes, with thirty-eight million virtual data files, indices, and control files. (AxleBase would think that those were one thousand different tables that he was concatenating.) Problem : Unfortunately, no mechanism was developed for axsys super-systems to query virtual tables before research and development ceased. But if that virtual table were queried by the standard database manager configuration, it would run for days instead of twenty-six seconds. Therefore, engineering and coding of the axsys virtualization would need to be part of the test (1) preparation. (Maybe a month or two if no problems were encountered.) It is anticipated that test (1) would not endanger the VLT if the hardware were to survive the test. Since the same hardware would be used that was used in the published test, it is anticipated that, with the upgraded axsys, the average time for a query of the 100 trillion rows would increase to around 127 seconds for alpha data and 26 seconds for numeric data. If that were, indeed, the result of test (1), then the feasibility of the virtualization test (2) would thereby be indicated or demonstrated. If it were not deemed satisfactorily demonstrated, then expansion of the virtual table could continue. With the feasibility of the virtualization test (2) demonstrated, one could proceed to funding, building, and running the test (2). If successful, the virtualization test would suggest the validity of the conjecture and encourage experimental verification (3) of it. BUT,
-- . --
________________________________ Copyright 2017-2023 John Ragan The "Data Limit Conjecture" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was 1 October of 2017. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 20171001. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, 1 October of 2017 with revisions, or 20171001 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
You can click here to obtain contact information.
-- . --
End of the Data Limit Conjecture.
__________________________________________________
Click for Document contents. Contents Of The Phenotypic Plasticity
End of the Phenotypic Plasticity contents.
This is a high-level system theory directed mainly to computer scientists, and perhaps to senior-level system developers and system architects.
________________________________ The phenotype concept was borrowed from the biology sciences for database research on the CoreModel.com site and then used for software research. Phenotypic characteristics are those expressed by a biological system, as opposed to its genotypic, internal, or latent characteristics, and that concept is here applied to computer systems. Phenotypic plasticity is the range of the ability of a system to alter the set of characteristics that it will express. The phenotype is of little interest here; it is the ability to determine the phenotype and the extent of that ability that is of interest. If phenotypic plasticity is present, then manifested characteristics are determined by the system in response to external stimuli. Permanent individual deviance from a population characterizes expression of biological phenotypic plasticity, whereas a computer system's plasticity is detectable by instance deviance that may span only the lifetime of that instance or even less. Also, and perhaps surprisingly, at this time in computer science history, the degree of phenotypic plasticity in biological systems is generally far more Profound, sometimes expressing animals that appear totally alien to each other. The biological concept posits a stable genotype, and the computer science concept assumes an unchanged code base. If any change in the source code is needed or if a recompilation is needed, then the resulting system change is not due to phenotypic plasticity. The cross-discipline translation causes some slight changes in the concept by inclusion of expressed function, morphology, and interface characteristics in computer system phenotypes. More subtle changes are dictated by the fact that biological phenotypes are predominantly physical, whereas computer systems are generally entirely abstractions; e.g., AxleBase is never seen and his functions are far removed from the can of beans that he tracks in the warehouse. A part of phenotypic plasticity is achieved through selective gene expression. In that method, environmental factors cause genes to be turned on or off. Selective gene expression is a powerful mechanism, but it is of little interest here merely because it is too simple to be of note. Many computer systems employ that mechanism and it is an operational part of AxleBase. The part in which we are interested is a more powerful mechanism. Not only are computer systems simplistic in comparison to genomic systems, they also use different architectural constructs and methodologies. Computer science is currently predominantly digital and uses that simplistic digital methodology through the entire system, but the biological methodology creates an extensive analogue layer between the genotype and phenotype layers, and the infinitely variable nature of that analogue layer makes it tremendously expressive without modification of the genotype. That Profound difference in foundations that is caused by the analogue portion allows a far greater phenotypical range in biological systems, so analyzing and defining their capabilities is far more difficult than is the analysis of a computer system. Multiple functions do not constitute systemic phenotypic plasticity. A popular software type before the advent of Microsoft Windows was a suite of applications in a package. That allowed the user to select a word processor or a spreadsheet from the package for his work. But that was merely a use of various system functions, and the software needed no extraordinary ability to express itself in various instantiations; i.e., no phenotypic plasticity. Phenotypic plasticity is generally undesirable in computer systems. Factors in the concept at the theoretical level mitigate against man-made systems being able to safely express new phenotypes in response to external environmental stimuli. Merely building a usable and reliable system is hard enough, but to build a system that manifests itself in various ways is flirting with disaster as it can be expected to evince bizarre and uncontrolled behavior. With some slight of hand, phenotypic plasticity is demonstrated in the AxleBase system at the selective gene expression level and to a slight degree at the analogue level, but cross-discipline comparison highlights our primitive state at this time. Although AxleBase demonstrates it in a computer system, the incredible level of natural phenotypic plasticity is far beyond the current abilities of computer science. One might wonder whether or not it is even possible for a digital system to manifest phenotypic plasticity beyond the AxleBase class into the genomic-level abilities. ( See the following Amateur Scientist section.) ( For an intentional attempt at phenotypic plasticity in a computer system to employ the concept, see the AxleBase "Axsys Super System", a section of its user manual.) Biology Examples of Phenotypic Plasticity :
-- . --
________________________________ ( The previous segment is needed for this to make sense. ) The distinction between analogue and digital is key to the analysis of the concept. The concept might be presented differently while retaining its essential character, but because of the great richness that is thereby given to the concept, is presented with the slippery and nebulous nature of the natural analogue domain that gives greater range of expressability and power to the genomic system. However, we recognize that the analogue construct may only be a conceptual construct of the human mind. According to twentieth century theoretical physics, if traced to the "Planck Level", we might find a digital source for the analogue. But we are incapable of dealing with the vast complexities that come from the mind of God, so like the physicists, we create simplistic concepts that allow our simple minds to comprehend such things as phenotypic plasticity. Therefore, in the geometer's words, the analogue concept is a given.
-- . --
________________________________ The publication of the system phenotypic plasticity concept is done to specifically make the concept available for general use in computer science and applications without surrendering any other copyright or intellectual property in the AxleBase project or in any other system or work. The concept was used as part of the phenotypic plasticity gradient for database model evaluation on the CoreModel web site. The original publication date has been lost, but old backups suggest that maybe 4 October 1999 could be close.
-- . --
________________________________ ( The Concept segment is needed for this to make sense. ) An ideal long term project for the focused and capable amateur might be the investigation of the analog layer hypothesis in genomic system phenotypic plasticity as a construct within the computer system context. It might yield interesting computer science and might provide beneficial models to the biological sciences. That proposal is expanded in Advanced Research Project Ideas for amateurs in the Invitation To The Amateur document. Also in that document are some equally interesting and less challenging ideas.
-- . --
________________________________ -- . -- "Phenotypic Plasticity" may be quoted and/or referenced in the usual, legal, and honorable manner of western civilization. When referencing it, please use the copyright date shown above. The original publication date was 4 October 1999. If you use the CoreDate, that date is 19991004. Like all of the internet, it may be expanded, updated, or corrected now and then. So if you wish, 4 October 1999 with revisions, or 19991004 with revisions. Its internet address is Example :
I used the concept as part of the phenotypic plasticity gradient for database model evaluation on the CoreModel site. The original publication date has been lost, but old backups suggest that 4 October 1999 is close. You can click here to obtain contact information.
-- . --
End of Phenotypic Plasticity.
__________________________________________________
Click to return to document contents. Contents Of RDB Mathematical Analysis
End of RDB Mathematical Analysis contents.
________________________________ This suggestion is presented only because it is interesting (fun), and is not expected to be of any value whatsoever. It surely has been investigated already, so if you find it interesting, please look for peer-reviewed printed sources because, although the author feels sure of it, this is written by somebody who was left behind by long-division. Hypothesis : Any computer system that runs on today's digital computers can be rigorously presented mathematically in its entirety regardless of its complexity. ( Domain : To qualify as a member of the mathematical NP problem domain, a problem must meet two requirements.
(*ref. Source: "American Scientist", p. 9, vol. 96, Jan. 2008.) The AxleBase project addressed the management of very large data stores in small computers as a generalized problem. The empirically expressible solution found in the form of the AxleBase system suggests that the problem and its solution can be expressed in rigorous mathematical form. Statement of the problem and its solution is expected to include the personal computer context with concomitant entity management segmentation because of its value. The number of inter-dependent variables that were found in the generalized problem, the domain size of each, and the fact that some contain multiple dimensions indicate a problem difficulty that the author feels reasonably sure places the problem in the NP class; i.e., the problem of very large data store management within the specified context falls within the NP class. That assessment seems to be supported by the years of research, analysis, design, and coding that were required to manifest the solution in AxleBase. Additional substantiation is indicated by the great resources, in the form of capital or, in the case of the open source hordes, manpower, that were needed by others to come close to duplicating the solution, and even those simplified duplications may have been built upon the AxleBase foundation. Proof of the solution must be simple to qualify a problem as NP. In this case, the solution is proven many times per day every day in the AxleBase lab through varied empirical tests. That fact is not presented as definitive, but only as indicative of the existence of a mathematically rigorous proof. Furthermore, a generalization of Godel's "Incompleteness" theorem seems to specify the impossibility of an empirical proof of a computer system. The empirical testing of the system intuitively feels like the only solution, and possibly sufficient solution, in the interim. Postulate : The management of very large data stores in the specified context is an NP problem. ( Note : Despite great discoveries and impressive solutions, neither engineering nor science can prove. Only mathematicians and logicians can prove, and God is the ultimate given.) ( Restriction : This is not intended to apply to other business systems. An accounting system, for example, appears to be a simplistic orthogonal system. Like so many business systems, it is primarily a front end processor for a database manager.)
-- . --
________________________________
_____________________________ This segment is addressed to those who are familiar enough with the relational database to consider it as an abstracted topological construct. Not only would the exercise be interesting and fun, but might generate practical results. This is especially addressed to the amateur mathematicians among us. Today is Monday, 23 Dec 2018. The following notes were written around ten years ago when the author became interested enough in topology to do some cursory reading in the subject. That was the first and last time that he considered topology, so he no longer understands the following and cannot discuss it. But since the notes were saved, it is decided that they should be presented for whomever may find them of interest. Math :
Unfinished :
-- . --
_____________________________ Abstraction of the relational database into a form that would be suitable for insertion into a topology construct. The following description of relational databases and their objects is conceptual. The actual database, as it is stored in the computer, is recognizable only to its database manager software and the creator(s) of that software. The following is how the end-users of relational databases conceptually perceive those databases, so that is how the database manager manifests them. ( SQL :
The relational database conceptually consists of (n) tables, each of which can be conceptually joined with any other table(s) in the database by its manager software, to return that joined table to the user. There are many other operations that the database manager can perform for the user on returning data. Each table in a relational database consists of (n) rows that are divided into (n) columns that give the table a conceptual similarity to a spreadsheet. In computer science, the relational table is also referred to as an entity. Therefore, in daily operations, a relational database is an abstracted concept that nicely maps into topological concepts and operations. The database manager analyses the raw data and structures on disk and presents them to the user as that abstracted visual concept. The thing that gives the relational construct its great power and that sets it apart from other kinds of database managers is the fact that its tables can be conceptually joined, on the fly, by the end user as needed in queries. For example, the government stores data about people in tables that all have a social security number column. All of those tables can be joined on any column, but that SSN column is especially powerful. For example, the following query
Of interest to the computer Professions is that the relational database construct seems adequately describable only as a topological entity. That is only the opinion of an uneducated man, but that observation comes after years of consideration of the topic. The relational construct is designed so that any datum in the entire database is directly addressable by the end user. Therefore, a table in the database has neither physical nor conceptual beginning or end. The same is true of the table's rows and columns. Therefore, the author submits that the database entities are best represented as two dimensional tori. ( Recognition :
-- . --
_____________________________ The entity row circumscribes the torus in the plane of the torus. It appears that the construct presents a Euclidean space of multiple two dimensional tori which are simply, but not universally, connected. Stated another way; they are all topologically connected, but not all will evince connection to all others at a practical level, and the connections may be altered by the database administrator at any time at the practical level. Thus, connectivity complexity arises from the fact that connections are neither universal nor uniform across all tori. That complexity may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that all are topologically orientable, but only if there is no need to ascertain orientation in the atlas. "AxleBase" presents that connectivity as a dynamically discoverable vector extending outside the space so that the entire space is observed and controlled via a two dimensional analogue. Additional complexity arises when "AxleBase" dynamically decides to abstract vectors through arbitrary layers based upon changes in demand and environment. An entity under consideration becomes a topological manifold. A point of interest may be the fact that it is not yet apparent that it can always be coerced into a shared Euclidean space at all times despite its apparent simplicity, but that is preliminary. Curvature currently appears irrelevant at the practical level. Although distance is not irrelevant and is in fact of great importance to us, it is now apparently made unimportant by the intervention of "AxleBase". However, these areas may warrant investigation in the future to verify that they are being adequately handled by our mechanisms. The construct space has (n) dimensions. The Riemann dimensionality of the total construct is expressed as an n-manifold where (n) is defined by entity expression. However, I am currently trying to decide whether or not that construct, in turn, must be embedded in another to account for a subset of connected manifolds which may be differently shaped. That construct then immediately presents the additional possibility of a symplectic construct. The dynamic nature of our n-manifold may present an interesting phase space in a very large operational database. My research indicates that, maybe, the already powerful relational database concept may be extended into realms of far greater power and complexity than we currently have. And again, just maybe, study at a high level of geometric abstraction may point the way to actualization at the mechanical level. If not, at least the search will have been fun. Also, although not as much fun, a topology construct might have practical applications. The AxleBase system is capable of constructing a database that is geographically distributed world-wide, that is dynamically reconfigurable while operating, that can be linked to other databases and unlinked as needed, that can create data tables as needed and on the fly, that can redefine foreign objects as native tables, and many other abilities. The definition of a topological construct with a dynamic visual interface might be valuable for the management and administration of such a database.
-- . -- -- . --
End of Mathematical Analysis.
End of Computer Science theory.
__________________________________________________
_________________________ ( 20191222. My ISP has gone out of business, so I am without email until I find another that offers dial-up connections.
( 20210321. Without email, I have been at peace, highly productive and creative, and growing spiritually. So I wrestle now with the thought of giving the world email to waste my time and to manipulate me.) I own no radio transceiver. (That which you call a telephone is actually a radio transceiver that broadcasts your secrets to the world.) I do not play on the internet, and never answer my (real) telephone unless a friend leaves a message. If you know of a company that still offers an internet dial up connection, please let me know.
(20230102. A bit of techie talk. Those of you who know about such things know that I have always had email because I have my own web sites. But mail to them is trashed since I have no local internet connection. I have recently been considering getting email.
-- . -- When my email is operating, it receives TEXT ONLY. If you cannot send TEXT ONLY, do not bother. Only that which is typed into the message from your keyboard will reach me. If your message cannot be thoroughly cleaned, the cleaning process will destroy it before I see it. The following will not reach me :
Copy nothing into the message. -- . -- It must be in English to avoid unicode,
-- . --
________________________________ -- . -- Miscellaneous Appendices Contents
-- . --
________________________________ Because the universe is so beautiful, logical, and well founded, it is the opinion of this writer, that a paradox cannot exist within it; i.e., that paradox-exclusion is a universal property. Perhaps he will address and expand the subject in a more logical and scientific manner if he later has the time and inclination.
It follows that the appearance of a paradox within any system or theory is a wonderful tool to alert us to the existence of a flaw or error that has been created therein; i.e., a human artifact. Therefore, the writer has worked assiduously looking for the possibility of a paradox that might be easily hidden in the massiveness of the body of the physics theory on this document. He has found none, but makes no guarantee. And if there is one, then the blame is, paradoxically, surely his. (For support see (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", p. 166 May-Jun. 2016, "Paradoxes, Contradictions, And The limits Of Science", by Noson Yanofsky ))
-- . --
________________________________
-- . -- A secondary source reports the findings that are published in a primary source. The danger of secondary sources is noted. But those referenced are reliable, and moving to a social security income left behind the expensive science journals.
-- . --
-- . -- The author apologizes for his ignorance. A major piece of quantum mechanics information that he should have learned long ago was brought to his attention after the "UIM" was complete. He was so repelled by the outrageous fantasy world of many quantum physicists that he had intentionally avoided quantum physics until the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) forced him to address it. But ignorance can be an asset. Being ignorant of that major quantum mechanics fact was a psychological assistance that allowed the author to attack the project without injuring the result. He has been reticent to speak his thoughts in various fields, thinking that the experts had surely thought of such matters. -- . --
-- . -- If you know anything about physics and cosmology, then you were expecting extensive usage of "Entropy" and the second law of thermodynamics, especially in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). It might have simplified the discussion for you, so the author apologizes. However, the concept and terminology usage of the second law of thermodynamics in every account that he red confused him until he realized the nature of his problem. The problem seems to be anthropocentric tendencies in physics that cause people to not know the nature of order and disorder. They seem to understand it as an abstraction, but when it is brought close to them, they must anthropomorphize, which disrupts it. Reading the teacup example of order for that law in childhood, it was a self-refutation. It was obvious to the boy that, contrary to that example's usage, a teacup is disorder and a teacup breakage is a return to the universal tendency toward order that was disrupted by Man's teacup creation. The example's anthropocentric logic was so upsetting that that law's salient feature became the boy's inability to remember it. Science suddenly seemed Profoundly incompatible with his logic, because it seemed obvious to the boy that Man's teacup, and the zolkwap of another intelligent life form, were extreme disorder in this universe that could be rectified only by total destruction of both teacup and zolkwap. ( In 2023, about six years after beginning work on this "UCM", this logician-theorist came across the first and second laws of thermodynamics in a book on molecular & cellular biology. His hypothesis that energy can be neither created nor destroyed is supported.
-- . --
-- . -- The author confesses that his daily life is intensely shared with our Creator; so much so that he often doubts that he alone created this web site. It seems impossible that one so limited could have done that. But if spiritual beliefs had, with intent, been allowed to alter the creation of this document, then the Creator and he, both, would be furious with him for diluting their relation with such deceit. (Contrary to what atheists and many Christians think, science and Christian theology (thus far) are consonant.) Also, although he enjoys the intellectual stimulation, he is not entirely comfortable when working on the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model), and sometimes freezes in fear. Sometimes for fear of blasphemy, and sometimes because this is given to atheists and preachers who become confused even by the most basic knowledge. ( This appendix was written before the "Christian Comfort" appendix. Christians who are scientists; please see also an important development in the "Christian Comfort" appendix, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) ( It was the fashion at one time, for atheists to wonder at how Christians could maintain their faith in the face of scientific progress.
-- . --
-- . -- Whether Professional, amateur, or layman, if you are spiritually bothered by anything in science, then please consider the material in "Troubled Christians" on this web site.
If you are uncomfortable with these matters, then the author sincerely apologizes for making you uncomfortable. He empathizes because he too was "Atheist and Agnostic" for many years. ( Discussion of these matters with pseudo-intellectuals is pointless quicksand in a spiritual desert.) (A friend from the Tuareg tribe verified that the Sahara has quicksand patches.)
-- . --
-- . -- Where reference is made to our primitive natures, no disrespect is intended for God's beautiful creation. But where he tells us that he made Man in his image, the Mighty Teacher was not referring to two eyes and legs, but left that impression for us in our infancy to comfort and guide us into spiritual maturity. The unfamiliar is frightening, and especially so to our sisters, so fret not about those who cannot let go of this world to grasp the spiritual, for the Almighty knows us Profoundly, and the matter will have been handled for each before arrival. In the meantime, please remind and help each other to be gentle and loving toward our wonderful gift.
-- . -- (
-- . --
________________________________ A sol in this context is a mass value. The sol value represents the approximate mass of our local star, the sun. It gives the astrophysicist a convenient and manageable way to address very massive astronomical bodies and events. For example, a black hole with a gigasol mass is approximately a billion times the mass of our local star.
-- . --
________________________________ For most of us, a choppy sea is the epitome of chaos. A state of chaos is indescribable, incomprehensible, and unpredictable messiness. However, scientists began microscopic study of system states in the latter part of the twentieth century, and developed a different perspective on chaos. They found that a close examination of a state of chaos in a system sometimes reveals an ordered state wherein the complexity is so great that it appears chaotic to casual observation. In other words, a system may appear chaotic to us only because the system complexity exceeds our ability to grasp it. Some stable systems include chaotic behavior in their morphology. It may be visible as slight behavioral perturbations, or it may be hidden within Profound complexity. That area of chaos is, in some systems, where state changes arise. The manifestation of chaos in systems that have a history of calmness is sometimes a signal that a complex system is preparing for a major state change. ( Click here for "Entropy". ) ( This author suspects that true chaos may not be part of reality, but he also suspects that that suspicion arises from his personal spiritual factors.) "Chaos" is also addressed in the "System Theory For Laymen" topic.
-- . --
________________________________ An ion is an atom that has lost one or more of the electrons that rotate about its nucleus, leaving it with a positive charge. At inception, the universe was filled with free-floating positively charged protons, and by free-floating negatively charged electrons. The nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a single positively charged proton, so each of those free protons was a hydrogen nucleus, which was an ion because of its charge. De-ionization is the combining of a nucleus with one or more electrons to form a complete atom. Since they have opposite charges, the resulting atom is neutralized. Upon de-ionization, the electron begins high speed rotation around the nucleus that will continue for billions of years, the purpose of which seems to be to cause us to wonder why or how.
-- . --
________________________________ 1. One who attempts to expand science by using logic to discover "empirically" verifiable new information from existing valid information. 2. One who attempts to expand science or scientific theory by using logic to discover "empirically" verifiable new information or theory from existing valid information.
-- . --
________________________________ An estimate from the astrophysics community is 10,000,000 solar masses in a hydrogen cloud of 600 light year diameter.
That gives us 11.3 sols per cubic light year of a hydrogen cloud. For convenience, let us round it to:
The early universe probably had a far denser atomic hydrogen gas, because all of the universe's matter existed entirely in independent atoms, and because it had extreme "UU" (universal uniformity) during the universal inception. Also, the entire universe was filled with that atomic gas. Today's molecular clouds may be denser than the original atomic clouds . . . maybe. So let us work with the 11 sol quantity until we get a better foundation estimate from the astronomy community. All of that also accounts for the many giants and great activity in that period. See the description in the "Stellar Aggregation" segment of the "UIM". -- . -- A cool hydrogen cloud has recently been found that is unusually large. Nearly 6 million light years across, bigger than the entire Milky Way galaxy, and contains a mass of 10 billion "Sols".
-- . --
________________________________ Named after the German quantum physicist Max Planck, 1858-1947, the planck length is smaller than an atom, and is used in the sub-atomic realm. It is about (10^20) times smaller than an atom's nucleus, 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 quintillion). Thus, the "planck" domain is sometimes used by this author to refer to the sub-atomic realm of the very small in physics. Physics in the planck domain is not that which we witness around us because it is constrained by small dimensions. It is sometimes very strange, not for magical or philosophical reasons, as some think, but simply because reality is constrained to behave differently when physically limited so severely.
Also sometimes referred to as the quantum physics, or the sub-atomic level. (*ref. Source: "American Scientist", vol. 109, Sep-Oct 2021, "Tunnel Vision", by Prof. Dean Tantillo)
-- . --
________________________________ At one time, much attention was given to consideration of the universe's topology, or to that of the space that is its foundation; frequently referred to as its curvature. The thought was that the spatial curvature could be:
We now have an answer. The "UCM"(Universal Construct Model) reveals that the universe is flat. Early in the theory development, it was noted that a high degree of orthogonality is found in today's universe. Discussion of that state begins in the "Background Radiation" segment and culminates in the "Universal Uniformity" section of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), which is a portion of the "UCM". Since there was no evident cause, the conjecture was made that that degree of orthogonality in today's universe could arise only if the universe was inordinately orthogonal at its beginning. That link to a state-extremity was made because the massive expansion, population, recasting, and reorganization of the universe after the "Inception Advent" had failed to entirely disrupt its orthogonal organization. The steady evolution of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) with extensive empirical support seems to present confirmation. Ergo, the universe is flat.
-- . --
________________________________ The "nuclear device" term, as used in this document, refers to any object, manmade or natural, that is capable of manipulating or working on atomic nuclei and sub-atomic elements to affect changes there. In this document, we are usually interested in those change-abilities that release energy stored in nuclear components Nuclear devices are stars, atomic bombs, nuclear reactors, x-ray machines, etc.
-- . --
________________________________ The Problem With E = M (C^2) A serious problem was exposed in that famous formula by the "Nature Of Time" assessment. - In the physicist's world, a second is the time that passes while light travels ~186,000 miles, so light speed is ~186,000 miles / second. The slash mark is red as "per", so it is per second.
Out of respect for Doctor Einstein, let us observe that he may have suspected that this was coming. Before jumping into relativity theory in his book, he looks at time because it is so important to the theory, and defines time as a mechanical wind-up clock; literally an old-fashioned wind-up alarm clock.
Therefore, until the problem is fixed or replaced, it is used throughout this document with its undefined value converted to a constant. That constant can be 186,000 imperial or 299,329.8 metric units, depending upon your preferred units of measure in the equation. The nature of those units is irrelevant. It is merely the value that was originally used when the equation was first formulated. (Which this writer suspects that the Professor pulled out of his hat.) Contrary to reports seen in many publications over past decades, the theory was never "Empirically" (i.e., experimentally) verified. Furthermore, the "Time Assessment" dissertation on this document indicates that such a verification is impossible. Also, Prof. Rothman's paper in "American Scientist" reports that doctor Einstein did not prove his theory when it was published, and his repeated attempts to prove it before his death all failed. See "Doctor Rothman's" paper. ( Some support for this logician-theorist's position has been provided by Professor Tony Rothman in a paper published by "American Scientist".)
( Also, click to see :
-- . --
________________________________ Physicists define entropy as the amount of disorder in a system. If the system is perfectly ordered, such as when the universe began, then it has a zero amount of entropy. Add a bit of disorder to the system, and its entropy is thereby increased. As the universe ages, its constant action increases its disorder. When the universe has the maximum amount of disordered energy and disordered matter, it will be at maximum entropy. No more action will be possible anywhere in the universe. It will be dark, motionless, and devoid of potential; i.e., dead. So the universe was created with an age limit. (That thought became part of this man's self-destructive insanity when a teenager.) -- . -- If you assess the concept critically, you will find self-destructive flaws in it. For example, if you remove anthropocentric qualities from it, then what are order and disorder on a cosmic scale ? That particular question created major confusion in childhood for this author who envisioned a totality of order and disorder and found them equivalent, impossible, and without meaning, while a teacher lectured about something. Also, if you evaluate the entire "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) with its component models, you may find that it will not allow attainment of maximum entropy. The author cannot state that absolutely because he has not yet done the evaluation, but has that intuitive suspicion. But maybe his intuition is being misled by the final few percent of a normalized curve that contains the mass of the entire universe. ( Click here for "Chaos". )
-- . --
________________________________ This topic is current research only. This jragan.com web site is technical. For example, it has topic headings and/or documents (pages) that are devoted to:
-- . --
________________________________ Null is a critical term and concept in any human endeavor that uses logic. Where it or its possibility is ignored, inexplicable results should be expected. For example, see the problems in the theory of relativity in the "Time" discussion. Null means nothing, but it means nothing in absolute terms, being neither zero, nor blank, nor empty, nor black, etc... For example, in computer database theory, an empty data position is empty, but it might not be null. Confusing ? Exactly, and we do not want to relieve that confusion because it epitomizes the nature of the null concept for the computer system. It is supposed to be confusing because that expresses how a system must treat it, and hopefully, insures that it is treated correctly. Division by zero is elementary compared to division by nothing. It is so important that high-end database managers such as AxleBase actually have a special value that they insert into a null data position, and that value means absolutely nothing, for which that system has special handling rules. The null is a subtle concept that causes Profound problems in many areas. The meaning of a null value is dependent upon the environment in which it is expressed. A mathematician might convert an empty numeric data position into zero, whereas a computer scientist, first evaluates the local data type and data morphology concepts, and may then convert the value into null. (See also the "Data Morphology" segment of "Data Analysis Expansion" for a discussion of data type and morphology in computer science, and press (alt-left arrow) to return here.) Therefore, this document is suggesting that "null" is not just a seldom used word, but is a concept whose explicit recognition and handling may be critical to nearly every human endeavor. The suggestion is that:
"Time" was evaluated and declared meaningless for science in its "Time Assessment" topic. That makes a quantity of time a null value, having no more meaning than a quantity of unicorns. Therefore, it cannot be rigorously evaluated, meaning that it cannot be added, multiplied, squared, compared, or handled in any operation because it is null.
(*ref. Source: "American Scientist", pp. 360-365, vol. 109, Nov-Dec 2021, "The Curse Of E = M (C^2)", by Prof. Tony Rothman.) ( You might also be interested in the short discussion of the "Human Bean Language Problems" appendix.)
-- . --
________________________________ Please be aware as you read the physics theory, that language presents difficulties in this document where we address concepts that are alien to the experience of human beans. For example, to state, as we must in "The Great Expansion" segment of the "UIM"(Universal Inception Model) that "the expansion was within nothing" is to abuse logic, for nothing can be within something that does not exist. Even that explanatory sentence humorously destroyed itself. And writing that more correctly as "nothing can be within nothing" just digs the pit deeper. Such problems could be analytically addressed in each case, and it would be an interesting exercise in logic, but that would make the entire document unwieldy, and would be more philosophy and linguistics than physics. So being aware, let us press on through the shortcomings of our tools. ( Believe it or not, the problem is far bigger than that presentation and has been addressed many times in other science fields. For example, see the "Null" and "Incompleteness" appendices on this document.
-- . --
________________________________ Since the "Time" concept was attacked on this document, it is avoided in subsequent discussion. (Which, despite appearances, was difficult for this writer.) However, we must address sequential processes in which we usually use, or refer to, "time" concepts, so let us consider a concept that uses the great chain of universal causation that began in the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). Postulate : There is a UCS(universal causal sequence), in which all events must participate. More ponderously, we may think of it as the great chain of universal causation.
Example : A man in Australia gets out of bed as you go to bed, so you cast those two events as synchronously happening after the sun's fusion ignition event. We can be sure that you are correct because the latter events were dependent resultants of the causative ignition event. Where our language forced the use of a "temporal" concept in physics theory in this document, consider it a reference to this UCS to specify the sequence of a string of events.
-- . --
________________________________ Teleology is a reference to, search for, or study of evidence of design in nature. Since the author of this document is a Christian, he has no need for teleological work in science or philosophy.
(This author carries a personal prejudice against the search for design because it can easily corrupt science, and can also easily corrupt the "Truth" and theology that this author loves.
-- . --
________________________________ Epistemology is an area of philosophy. It studies the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowlege. It can be as abstract and complex as that sounds. But it also puts both feet flat on the floor of reality. For example, if scientists gave more attention to epistemology , we might not now be embarrassed by those idiots who waste our time with fairy tale alternate universes and other nonsense.
-- . --
________________________________ Some of the biggest blunders in science were caused by scientists ignoring, or being in ignorance of, the philosophical foundations of western civilization. A few of those blunders illustrate this document. Let us observe a moment of silence to recognize the institutions that habitually validate Professionals without first educating them. The most obvious and best-known requirement of science is "Empiricism", but if it is so well known, then why do so many scientists overlook it ? The answer may be that many neither understand it nor realize its critical nature. When taught at all in an institution, it can be, and frequently is, summed up in a few sentences, so many scientists hardly think about it as they plan research. That demonstrates the twentieth century's philosophical failure in science. Some prominent scientists have declared that math is a science. Math is NOT science ; it is a tool, and one of science's tools, but without support by the dirty hands of the empiricist, math proves nothing, and may even become, as noted in the "Formula Problem", as misleading as magic. Math can, and frequently does, indicate problems or possible areas of research, but until those problems or areas of research are empirically validated, they are only tentative theory or conjecture.
While patting ourselves on the back, we have been on a course toward the dark ages via the internet, led by the pseudo-science of godless "Democrats/ Communists". Physicists world-wide have expended their careers on math in the name of something called "string theory", but after more than a half century, dirty hands have not supported it. They have forgotten the foundation philosophy of science, if they ever knew it.
( Although Doctor Guth is blamed for it since he took credit for it, his mistake is partially attributable to many co-conspirators in the physics community because nobody required empirical support for his postulate, or even for a foundation of logic. They settled for his mathematics, which so efficiently hides error, and for his reference to an authority figure as was done in the middle ages and is done in today's Chinese culture.)
-- . --
________________________________ Consonance and Cause sometimes appear to be logically related, and that appearance can lead us into great error. For example, the results of the "Christian Comfort" dual analyses were found to be nearly identical, so they could be said to be consonant, and even highly consonant. However, if you study the internal structures of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model), and the text of the "Genesis" account, and their comparative logic, you will find no logical or empirical link between them. Therefore, the investigator carefully phrased the conclusions of the "Christian Comfort" exercise to avoid any link other than, possibly, the investigative logic train and its consonance result. Now, let us cast ourselves as experimental scientists engaged in an empirical investigation of events a' and b'. We find that the production of event a' always causes event b'. Therefore, events a' and b' are tightly related in a causal relation. The event b' can be shown to be a direct result of event a'. But a relation is required to be neither causal, nor direct, as stated in the "Truth" postulate construct. In fact, that postulate creates a universally linked universe in which everything is linked through vast spatially and temporally distant trains of logical and/or empirical links. But one of the reasons for the carefully constructed conclusions of the "Christian Comfort" exercise is to allow its use in any future attempt to create a logical link between the dual analyses of the "Christian Comfort" exercise.
-- . --
________________________________ (( Although the rest of this document is science,
-- . -- If you are unfamiliar with the "UIM", then you are hereby advised to read it now, and to read it with skepticism.
If this author can be faulted for a foundation error in his theoretical work, it may be for his personal belief that all of science, philosophy, and theology seem to prove thus far that we share logic constraints with our Creator, "...in our image, in our likeness.". Furthermore, the author believes that logic, although not proof, as long as it is Epistemologically" supported by hard-nosed "Empiricism", is a valid and powerful investigative tool for science. Therefore, this author is reticent about taking credit for physics theory on this document. After starting work on it, he merely obeyed the rules of logic and science and put one foot in front of the other until he found himself at the logical and empirically-supported destination. Discoveries that support his work continued as he worked. When you read the physics theory, you will find many supporting references from science periodicals, many of which were received after the theory was developed and published.
-- . -- "Genesis" is the first book of the Christian's Bible, in the beginning of which, God describes in very simple terms his creation of all things. We have learned enough to be able to understand that the first few words describe the creation of the Universe. But it was written for all men around the world and across millennia, so it seemed, in this man's mind, and before this exercise, alien to the reality of science.
-- . -- Although frightening, a valid question that arises for the scientist who is Christian is, since the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) and the Bible's "Genesis" account appear different, which is valid ? Also, although committed to science, the author was uncomfortable with publishing theory that sometimes seemed to contradict our Creator, but had greater fear of trying to support Biblical accounts with even the slightest deceit in science.
-- . -- Therefore, on this day (20201026), after investing years in the development of the physics theory on this document, the author held his breath and began an explicit comparison of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) with the corresponding part of the Bible's "Genesis" account. The comparison was designed to allow the "Genesis" need for universal communication with all men across millennia, while allowing the "UIM" need for explicitly-expressed rigorous logic and "Empiricism".
Those who come later may accept all this as a given since it has been explained, but the province and purpose of each document seemed impossibly different from the other, placing them far beyond comparison. Worse, the "Genesis" account seemed so primitive and illogical that, during every reading of the Bible, he fearfully skimmed over it and hardly saw the words. For example, the author has been bothered since his first reading of the Bible at age forty-five by "Genesis" putting the Earth's creation before creation of stars. And "light" appeared after "earth". That was fine for men of the neolithic/bronze age, but was obviously erroneous and would not work for us.
But all of that fear turned out to be a product of this logician-theorist's ignorance. He was headed toward an amazing surprise; a surprise that arose because he had worked assiduously toward keeping his theory close to "Empirically" verifiable reality; i.e., honest. Many, and maybe most, of the cited empirical references were found or published after its corresponding part of the theory had been written and published. So maybe the positive result of the comparison should have been expected, and maybe he was so intent on developing scientific theory that he could see neither its philosophical nor theological impact. If you want to refer to the sources:
-- . -- 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- . -- No disagreement was found. The two accounts differ in a matter that this logician-theorist expected to destroy their congruity; i.e., their intended audiences.
He who created the "UIM", and had red God's book nearly every hundred days for decades, was truly shocked that the accounts agreed at all, and then agreed so closely. The sentence and concept construct of "Genesis", that had seemed so nonsensical from a scientist's perspective, suddenly popped into clarity. Even the event sequences of the two were in agreement. (Very personally, the writer thinks maybe he was rewarded for including our Father in the work. But who knows His Mind.) But if we accept all of that, then one must wonder why God made his account, delivered back in the neolithic//bronze age, fit perfectly with the cosmology and theoretical physics of the "UIM" that would be delivered thousands of years later based upon "Empirical" science.
It is important to note that neither document proves the other. Such a proof would require a great deal more investigation and preparation with philosophical and theological tools to insure that they are even addressing the same problem-space. To even suggest such a proof at this point makes both the scientist and the Christian cringe, for such cross breeding has, historically, produced monstrous chimera offspring. ( See the "Science Danger" on the "Editorial" page, and the "Consonance and Cause"
"on this document.
The "UIM" may become superseded, for that is part of the process of science, but the "Genesis" account can never be discredited. For the author of one of them is merely a man. -- Danger ! -- Dear Brothers and Colleagues,
Confession As a follower of the Christ, this writer is taught that the will of God is above all things, and he knows, also, that he may claim the freedom that God gives us to search out, analyze, and assess all things that can be understood by a man, and even this will be to our Almighty Creator's glory. (Thank you, Father) ))
-- . --
________________________________ (( All are strongly encouraged to avoid that area, even in theory, for there lies personal danger. Remember that it precedes the advent of the universe's inception. But many are prideful and deceitful, even to themselves, so remember that you were warned along with all others. From the perspective of science, that area is outside of the universe. Therefore, it is a "Null" value. As such, it cannot be addressed by science; i.e., the scientist can state only that that area does not exist, but even that will be suspect because that would be an impossible statement about a null value. By definition, anybody who attempts to address that null value is not a scientist.
-- . --
________________________________ Empirical evidence is the foundation of science. The philosophy and practice of depending upon empirical evidence is known as empiricism. Empirical evidence is reality that is directly and personally observed or experienced by a person, and reported to the scientific community by him. ( Drum roll and trumpet flourish.)
Empirical evidence is that which is evident to human senses, and/or is that which is detectable by instruments that are acceptable to the scientific community. It is that which is observed, immediately verifiable by independent observers, and verifiable by subsequent generations of observers. (Independent verification or refutation of evidence is critically important to scientists.) Belief, tradition, icon, iconic persons, and religion are not scientific evidence. Where empirical evidence conflicts with belief, tradition, icon, iconic personage, religion, or anything else, only the evidence is acceptable to science.
Theory, hypothesis, and math are not evidence. Scientific validity requires that theory, hypothesis, and math have some evidentiary support. If a theory, a hypothesis, or math is disputed by evidence, then that theory, hypothesis, or math is invalid.
Empiricism is the foundation of science. Without unflinching, hard nosed empiricism, science will cease to exist. We may have lost sight of that for a while in the twentieth century, which is why the empirical philosophy is presented here within a science presentation. The most beautiful logical or mathematical structure conceivable is worthless without substantiating experiment and/or observation. If there were a king of science, then he would have dirty hands. ( The fact that "Empirically" supported data is hard to believe is of little or no consequence in science. That which is easy to believe is merely the familiar in which we spent our childhood.)
-- . --
________________________________ The sober man is beset today by scientist-colleagues practicing anthropomorphic dabbling in theology on one side, and on the other by spiritual fundamentalist-brothers dabbling in science. So quantum physicists proved that the existence of the universe requires men looking at it, and spiritual fundamentalists proved that Earth is only five thousand years old. While each points the finger of ridicule at the other, they conspire to embarrass both God and Man through association. They sometimes make listening to Christian radio and reading science journals almost unendurable. And they do not seem to understand why a man might prefer loneliness more than their companionship. ( Does anybody besides this writer remember the years of the atheist religion sermons that were preached by the editorial staff on the pages of "Scientific American"?) If this document were to somehow survive for a while, men will find themselves continuing the same insanity, because men are not as smart, honest, sane, or godly as they imagine. Historians will laugh at our age as we laughed at men of the dark ages.
-- . --
________________________________ Postulate :
-- . -- "Insulated Compound Acceleration" is a key component of cosmology mechanics. It is acceleration that is compounded and insulated from interaction with external objects so that the universe affects a locally insulated compound universal acceleration. It is a major component of the "Great Expansion" segment of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model). Compound Acceleration:
Insulation :
-- . -- As explained in the "Dark Energy" derivative, "Dark Energy" is a misleading misnomer because it is not energy, but is a process that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. Therefore, "Insulated Compound Acceleration" can be seen in action in today's universe by pointing a telescope at the distant frontier of the universe. As a star or galaxy approaches the speed of light at that distance, its light becomes strongly red-shifted, and then it disappears into distant acceleration. The actual "Speed" of those most distant objects cannot be stated because speed requires the use of time and distance. As explained in the "Nature Of Time", the "time" variable is currently undefined, and physicists have not yet defined those varying distances. Distance:
(*ref. Source: "Sky & Telescope", pp. 12-19, Oct. 2022, "Keep Your Distance", by Govert Schilling.) Distance also becomes an undefined variable during independent spatial expansion of the various segments. (Spatial expansion is also universe expansion as specified by "Hypothesis 1" of the "UGM" (Universal Gravity Model).) If you feel a need to wiggle against the confines in an attempt to find something solid on which to stand, remember "Axiom 1" of the "UIM" (Universal Inception Model) that presents the universe, and "Axiom 3" that requires scientific proof within the universe (unless you are a fairy tale writer or a serious theologian). There is nothing else. "Insulated Compound Acceleration" appears in :
Ancillary effects of the mechanism are astounding and counter-intuitive, but they fit neatly into observed reality. For example, see the calculated duration of the universe's creation in the Inception Duration section of the "UIM".
-- . --
________________________________ Speed is an obvious and simple concept, but be sure to entirely read the "Nature Of Time" topic before reading this, please. Speed is an assignable attribute of any protracted change. Our perception of speed, like movement, is dependent upon our recognition of the relative states of two or more objects. The numerical descriptions that we apply to speed are a product of our intellects, and have little to do with speed, but centuries of work have given us correlations that are high enough to allow local practical assessments of the speed attribute. Our attempt to scientifically objectify speed is the development of a set of quantifiable "functions" that are applicable to various objects. Each is a quantity of lapsed physical units per a quantity of other lapsed physical units. Usually, the speed measurement uses different unit types for the numerator and denominator, and we usually try to select a denominator that seems to have a uniformly repeating rate. For example, it might be :
( Many are arguing at this point because they are highly educated and no longer live in caves. They base speed upon hours that are precisely controlled to within ten millionths of a second, which is as accurate as... etc. Actually, they use the above examples, and they failed to read and understand the "Nature Of Time" topic. ) The author has caused himself as much trouble as he caused others because he has obviated time and thereby turned the common expression of speed into an impossibility; both are concepts that he needs for the construction and communication of a logic path. Actually, the author has no problem with expressing speed as miles / one eighty-six-thousand-four-hundredth of a planet's revolution. If the speed of light in Einstein's formulae had been defined as 186,000 miles / one eighty-six-thousand-four-hundredth of a planetary revolution, then this author might have acquiesced, at least while he attempted to understand that, but it was defined as 186,000 miles / null; perhaps per unicorn horn. ACDP
The result is that somebody will develop a relation theory explaining part of reality with a function that uses the ACDP. Since the ACDP will be familiar to everybody and developed by recognized intellectuals using complex math that is familiar to nobody, only degenerate atheists would attack that relationivistic view of reality. Of course, if you red (read) the "Nature Of Time" topic as suggested, then you recognize this improbable ACDP fantasy as that which has actually taken place in science without protest for the past century. (Inspired, of course, by the spirit of that great debate that raged between church thinkers during the dark ages over the precise ACDP value.) ( Of atheists and theologians, the award for the group that is most deserving of contempt is still under consideration.
-- . --
________________________________ A life of avid reading has presented the "Speed" of light as the "Speed Limit" for the entire universe. Also, that reading never offered an "Empirical", or even a logical reason for that belief. So this logician-theorist has had reservations since childhood about that speed limit primarily because others did not. The theory of relativity, for example, seems to coil about to attack and defeat itself in at least one area. Honest "belief" is the foundation of a relationship with God, so the author has no trouble with God and his Christ. He believes and needs no more evidence, although he is grateful for the evidence given. However, empiricism and logic are the foundation of science, so he comes to physics with trouble "believing in" those things in which many "Atheistic" physicists believe: e.g., the speed limit of light. Surely, if somebody had proof, he would have presented it to the public by now. That is not to say that this logician-theorist entirely rejects light speed as the maximum speed in the universe, and even tentatively suggests a possible "Source" for the Universal Speed Limit. But it is presented only as tentative conjecture until some evidence may promote it to hypothesis. Indeed, for want of a fact, he uses the light speed limit where necessary, but only as a working-hypothesis under duress until we work through the insanity.
-- . --
________________________________ Observe a baby to find that one of the first things that a human must learn is the entity concept; he is not born with it. Until he knows it, he cannot learn the relation concept, interact spatially, develop emotional relations, and construct an internalized world-model. He cannot even see until he perceives entity delineation in the kaleidoscope around himself. Delineation perception uncovers the entity concept. It is critically important that he quickly learn that part of that blur is a mother-human entity. And an important intellectual and psychological milestone will be his realization that even he is a delineated entity, and yes, even a theological milestone. Thus, the entity concept is part of the human's bedrock. By the time that he is grown, the "entity" is an unquestionable "given", as far as a person is concerned. Therefore, some thought was given to excluding it from consideration just because it might be shrugged off as nonsensically obvious and inconsequential. But rather than being inconsequential, "entity" is foundational for the universe and the human bean. Regardless of smallness, ephemerality, or nebulosity, nothing exists that was not created as an entity. In addition to its importance to each person, without a means of creating entities, the universe would be functionless. The universe required that the entity concept be manifested in some form so that it could create and use entities. Therefore, the entity concept was included in the "Critical Details" sub-section of the UIM (Universal Inception Model) to epitomize the many important details that are, necessarilly, ignored by the model. Its real-world manifestation is superficially handled in the "Property Schemata" derivative of the "Theory Derivatives" topic. ( Hidden inside Man's many languages is the explicit recognition of the existence and importance of the entity construct. Its design and creation is another of the countless examples of God's immense and Profound intellect. Do not dismiss it, because the point is not that you can understand it after it was placed in front of you, but that it was conceptualized, designed, and created when nothing existed, and that you were then designed to be able to use it from infancy in his image.) -- . -- You may have noticed as you studied the "UCM" (Universal Construct Model) that the "entity" has a terminal problem that drags us into the "Quantum Mechanics" realm. But, strictly speaking, the terminal problem may not be a domain, but may be a description of a facet of the manner in which the entire universe is constructed at its most fundamental level.
-- . --
________________________________ Each source is referenced at or near its usage. Sources Of Support are published periodicals. Periodical publications were selected that are :
( Please note that "American Scientist" is not "Scientific American".
Internet :
-- . -- Warning: Association with bad company may have cost the "Nature" journal its disciplined adherence to rigorous "Empirical" science. Suspicion began with its amazing publication of a Communist Chinese "teleportation" article as serious science without positive empirical results, continued through other suspicious Chinese reports, and has climaxed with revelation in October of 2020 of probable ownership and editorial control of "Nature" by Communist China ; a nation and culture that has demonstrated a godless untrustworthiness in the affairs of men. Chinese physics in "Nature" in 2020 reads like a Chinese phone book. Work has begun to delete from this web site the many references to Chinese work in physics published in "Nature" in 2020. The fact that so much Chinese research around the world suddenly supported the most esoteric and arcane physics on this document became another reason for suspicion. Valuable material may be lost, but corruption of science, and association of this web site with the godless morals of Communist China cannot be risked.
On Friday, 20230929 at 17:00, "The Hamilton Corner" radio show hosted a professional scientist who reported that the "Nature" journal rejected a research paper because the paper reported climate change fact that disagreed with "Commucrat Tyrant" propaganda. On 20201111, thought began vacillating between total rejection of the "Nature" journal in its current form, and possible retention of some of the "Nature" references that are neither Chinese nor physics.
John
-- . --
________________________________ The international community of mathematicians became interested in proving mathematics in the early twentieth century, Yes, the entire field of mathematics. A great deal of intellectual effort was being expended on the project until one of them, Kurt Godel, proved that it cannot be done; i.e., that the field of mathematics cannot be proven to be true, correct, or valid. His famous insight is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. He pointed out that a proof of math must come from outside the body of math, but that proof would make it part of the body, so it, also, would need to be proven, and that proof would require proof..., etc., etc., ad infinitum. Therefore, mathematics is, and will always be,
While doing research in computer science, this writer discovered the same problem in complex computer systems; i.e., they cannot be proven to have no fatal flaws. Having no computer science education, he learned later that other computer scientists had already discovered it and they made the same error that was made by Godel by thinking too narrowly; i.e., they called it "the halting problem" as though the logic problem pertained only to computer systems. Without realizing it, Godel had discovered a Profound and universal problem : If any complex field of study is pursued diligently and profoundly, then it may evince incompleteness; i.e., it cannot be logically entirely grasped; the student may reach a point at which he realizes that, in pursuit of a solid foundation for his knowledge, he has, instead, stepped into nothingness. Any logically-complex field of study may be found to be
( Already being known as incompetent and uneducated, this student can afford to put his foot in his mouth : It appears to him that our Almighty Creator recognized and accounted for the incompleteness problem during his "Genesis" process. Or maybe he was just encouraging us to use the intelligence that his Love gave to us.)
-- . -- -- . -- The primary purpose of this table is to assist this logician-theorist with his in-process theoretical analysis and evaluation.
Hypothesis- h, Axiom- a, Conjecture- c, Postulate- p
-- . -- -- . -- __________________________________________________ |
|
Technology and web site |
|
|
Web site is maintained with Notepad.
|
|