The 8th International Conference Buddhism & Australia
Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia Illustrations
|Articles by alphabetic order|
Gravity - the Cooling of the Cosmos
|Please consider making little donation to help us expand the encyclopedia Donate Enjoy your readings here and have a wonderful day|
In previous pieces I have advocated the idea that ‘gravity’ is the result of cosmic field pressure, emerging because of a ‘lee’ in the counter-pressure of the cosmic deep-field around a body. Although I was sitting in the bath, like Archimedes, when the idea came to me; unlike Archimedes, I stayed in the bath, not yet sure of my second ‘Eureka’ on gravity. I found just recently that Newton and Lorentz and several others had played with similar ideas a (long) time ago (see Wiki, history gravitation, paraphrased here), but although they all eventually dismissed it, I want to give it another try, from a different perspective. After all, gravity is still a mystery and here is a real (not abstract) and even understandable explanation.
Here are some points of similarity with those earlier theories: 1)Lorentz used electromagnetic radiation, like I do with Poynting vectors of EM-fields. 2) Newton and Riemann argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other, similar to my principle of ‘source streams to sink’. 3) Newton and Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies, which amounts to the same as my insight of ‘depressions’, or ‘lee-fields’ near the bodies. The ‘depression’, loss of pressure density, is what Einstein calls ‘curvature’, but that is too much a 2-D description of a 3-D reality and is only mathematical (Riemann); in my picture it is a loss of cosmic field-pressure (loss of density) in the spherical ‘lee’ of the object (shielding) which is mathematical but has ‘mechanical’ components, as deepfield-density and cosmic field-pressure.
It is indeed the deep-field which reacts to the presence of the object, in this it is in full agreement with Einstein, but the object is on the deepest level part of the deep-field through which it passes, it moulds the deep-field in its passing. Gravity and electromagnetism are not separate distinct fields, as Einstein maintains, they are both emerging aspects of the one deep-field, but since electromagnetism is the deep-field of all ‘matter’ the whole concept of gravity becomes obsolete. The EM-field is probably the main push of the pressure-gravity.
When you light a candle, you light the deep-field, the candle is not the source of the light, but the trigger of the deep-field. This is why the speed of light is independent of the motion of the so-called source, which is no source. The field is already there only has to be triggered to emerge. When you push the candle it will fall, the pressure-gravity field was already there, gravity ’emerges’ because of imbalance. When the candle falls, does its light fall? Can light fall? Newton thought the Earth was attracting the falling candle, Einstein claimed that as far as the candle was concerned the whole universe made a somersault, but I think it is safer to speculate it is space itself that pushes you down when you lose equilibrium. Space wants everything in a steady place. At the same time there is a kind of vortex, a sink in the deep-field, which induces rotation, like all orbiting in ‘free’ space. So the change in pressure of the deep-field is caused by the density and geometry of the deep-field. The energy absorption by all bodies from space is a kind of ‘sucking-in’ which is the aspect of the vortex which then in extremis becomes the Black Hole. It is also some kind of contraction and by all means the concavity of the torus surface is the best example of the mathematical contraction of space. It is this contracted state which induces the acceleration, but it is as with expansion it is the state of local space which induces a dynamic. The local state of space defines the rate of transformation (local time). This is why the universe is in a steady state, but its convexity is perceived as expanding, redshift, but space in our model is just as steady as the surface of a torus, with local contraction (concave) and local expansion (convex).
So my present description combines these insights and gives, I think, a more understandable picture of what really happens on all levels.
An authority on what I try to say all the way with my ‘deep-field’, is the physicist John Bell in Wiki at ‘Aether theories’, who actually uses the same kind of reasoning I do about Lorentz, superluminal speeds and quantum behaviour, elsewhere he said that the ‘ether’-concept should be chosen if only because it is so much more adequate in making things easier to explain. But nobody listens. The concept of ‘aether’ has become completely ‘out of the question’, in physics, eradicated, and see what damage is done. I think the concept of the cosmic deep-field opens complete new vistas, if only one gets the (zero-)point.
Let me insert here an appropriate quote from another authority on the matter. ( I am pleasantly surprised by uncovering such unequivocal support for my own findings by several unquestioned authorities recently).
Robert B. Laughlin: Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ‘ether’ in contemporary theoretical physics:
“It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” ” ‘A relativistic aether’, let’s leave it at that. But we will return to this important issue because the conceptual reinstatement of the aether may turn out to be a key to solving the huge incompatibility problems in theoretical physics.
In the following I explain how I have deducted from the mathematics of natural number geometry the possible interaction of spherical and toroidal wave patterns of resonance which would pervade everything and go down to Planck levels, a grid of singularities in Einstein’s description, here called the ‘deep-field of space-pixalls’.
One circle rotating around an axis gives us the sphere, two interconnected circles rotating around perpendicular axes give us the (horn-)torus. The one is how energy manifests in absorption (contraction, spherical compression), that is: spherical stars, the other how energy translates in emission (toroidal expansion, radiation, momentum), that is: toroidal (standing) waves.
What I do here is constructing in my own language a scientific ontology which is based on natural number logic, geometry and harmonics (musical, overtones). It is completely based on logical reasoning on the basis of what the numbers my model generates mean in the reality of your everyday world and in the world of physics, possibly in a big way.
It looks like ‘Kindergarten mathematics’ to the professional, so this is how simple and understandable my model is, or rather, begins. This model’s ‘simple’ mathematics though could break the present mould of science. It is a different paradigm.
It should be borne in mind that my view of the cosmos is that of an integrated cyclical system, permanent creation, in which heating and cooling are two complementary phenomena. The heating is caused by radiation, which very much sustains the fabric of space by feeding into the space-pixalls, this is the pressure part. Absorption is excessively so when ‘matter’ (condensed/excited space-pixalls) is involved as a concentration of energy in the cosmic deep-field. This absorption creates the ‘lee-field’ around an object, it shields the general deepfield-pressure from the direction of the object, resulting in net-pressure towards the object, which is falsely seen as ‘attraction’, and called ‘gravity’ (gravitas). (some call this approach ‘push-gravity’ but this involves pushing particles, which is not the case here, also see Newton, Euler, above, I would prefer ‘pressure-gravity’, if ‘gravity’ is to remain as term; the best term would be aether- or deepfield pressure, it keeps everything restrained and in order).
In this logic the cosmic radiation and pressure is transformed by inducing spin, that is, into ‘mechanical’ unlimited motion and momentum in a reflection wave-field. All spin creates waves. This is the object’s inertial field. (And this is why Lorentz’s thermo-dynamic objection of ‘over-heating through absorption’ is void, the absorbed energy is transformed into momentum and field). It are these inertial fields which give the final rigidity and high pressure in the deep-field (Dark Matter?) so in that sense Mach was right in claiming that inertial space was caused by the totality of the matter in space, but he and science in general forgot about the inertia of the spin of all these bodies ( like gyroscopes), this is the missing ‘dark matter’, it is ‘dark inertia’. It are possibly the reflection fields of the large heavenly bodies which feed into the high pressure of the deep-field at quantum level. This draining of energy from the deep-field can be seen as cooling the deep-field to sustain the mechanical cycle of supplying and draining, to sustain the transformation by transfer of energy in radiation, or by draining, so that is: ‘cooling the cosmos’
So this is why the principle runs:
“Gravity is the cooling of the cosmos”
In the following I will set out how this relates to my present, much further developed, view of the cosmos. I now understand much better what I intuited at the time 14 years ago, but I would not have used those terms today probably and I actually had forgotten about it, I must confess, because it is so long ago I found it, but it remains a powerful comprehensive statement in its own right. And a complementary principle, added today, can run :
“Radiation is the warming of the cosmos”. (It could mean Dark Energy)
My cosmology revolves around principles, like rotation, cooling, contraction, least resistance, continuity, equilibrium, harmonics, not the usual rigid physical laws which are derived from mathematics and usually poorly understood by scientists themselves because the mathematics is clear, but what it signifies isn’t; because the laws are not properly understood they do not interrelate which makes for the lack of a comprehensive picture. All laws are presented as independent entities like in the case of the concept of Entropy. The notorious Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics is almost sacred to physicists, unfortunately it is a dead end street. In my model there is no disintegration other than as part of regeneration, but the Bigbang cosmology is a one-way alley, from the Bang to….. where no one knows for a long time now, but it seems to be dark and cold there. Wouldn’t it?
My description of the space-pixalls ‘aligning’, ‘contracting’ and ‘expanding’ is an attempt at really describing what ‘happens’ at the quantum level of the deep-field. The more so because this deep-field is the ‘screen’ on which ‘geometrical forms’ materialize. This sounds like holography. The object is a concentration of excited pixalls in a form which influences the geometry of its environment by its reflection-field. This ‘organisation’ of space around the object results in a ‘lee-field’, which functions as a ‘sink’ through pressure-differential. The general pressure of the cosmic deep-field accelerates all objects towards each other up to the point where there is an equilibrium in the pressure of the reflection fields, that is when they are in resonance and stable orbit.
As a metaphor the deep-field reaches to the deep of the ocean, motionless and under high pressure, but the deep-field is also the currents, major and shallow, it is the waves of the ocean and, eventually, between these huge forces Life emerges as the foam on the waves, sometimes abundant but always fragile in every bubble.
Canonical Pi is a Euclidean number
The most obvious fallacy of science is that, with much talk of ‘curvature of space-time’, expansion, acceleration etc. nobody seems ever to wonder what happens to Pi (as a Euclidean number), in a non-Euclidean setting like curved space. (True, Einstein mentions it, but his π’s are smaller than canonical Pi because he measures a convex space, they should be bigger than Pi to express the contraction of the radius relative to the circumference in most cases, a concave space, this is the ‘pull of gravity’). Except for the rings of the giant planets which are their gyroscopic razor-thin absolutely Euclidian flat inertial fields, which help to stabilize the planet in its rotation, as the moons do, there is no flat space. (without the stabilizing effect of the moon orbit, higher life would not be possible on earth, probably, it would wobble like ‘hell’). Except for these huge stabilising rotating inertial fields there is nothing Euclidean in space and certainly not at the quantum level, whatever scientists say about ‘flat’ space. The rigidity of flat of the Saturn rings is mindboggling, over some 280,000km it has a thickness to exceeding 1 km, that is effectively pure Euclidean space, but most of all shows a rigid underlying geometry.
In my system the differing values of Pi could actually be the measure of space curvature, which will show in the specific number use and geometric place a measured value takes between two or more mathematically fixed standard values.
This system is built on two different incompatible approximate values for Pi and Pi-squared (ᴨ²), all rational numbers, which both are based on contraction of the radius as we would expect in a vortex. Pi is for the sphere (axial rotation circle), Pi-squared for the (horn-)torus (tangential rotation circle). So because of the contraction of space they are slightly bigger than Pi, but only in the thousandths, as always in this system. (Canonical Pi = 3.14159265… squared = 9.86960440..):
Pi- Sphere (7) = 22/7 = 3.142857 142.. sqrd=9.8775510..
Pi- Sphere(11) = 2800/891 = 3.14253647.. sqrd=9.8755355..
Pi- Torus = 800/81 = 3.1426968.. sqrd = 9.87654321.
Pi- Cube = 359/198 or 360/198 x sqrt(3) = 3.14 0 43…. smaller or 3.14 9 18…. bigger than Pi.
We remenber that the circle formula is 2.ᴨ.r
the formula for the surface of a sphere is 4.ᴨ.r²
the formula for the surface of a horn-torus is 4.ᴨ².r²
(note this is the square of the circle 2.ᴨ.r )
the formula for the volume of a horn-torus is 2.ᴨ².r³
(note that the last formula is identical to Einstein’s formula for Riemann’s spherical space (4th dimension) which, thus, turns out to be a horn-torus volume).
These formulas are the core of these geometries and in this system the ‘horn-torus’ is named ‘corus‘, as a contraction of ‘core’ (point), ‘compact’ and ‘torus’. This is what it seems all about: the secret versatility of the torus.
The torus is among my most valued tools and in relation to the sphere it is the heart of the cosmological model I present in these pages. The torus (ring) incorporates the important ratio 10:9, in my system, which is the crucial ratio in the natural number logic on which the ‘geometry of resonance’ is based and which, as I have shown, pervades the solar system (see Solar system resonances).
As Huygens laid down the patterns of light waves, I hope to lay down here the patterns of the ‘inertial’ waves of the reflection fields which we find in the ring-systems. It are essentially these emission wave-fields of the giant bodies which form the pressure of the deep-field. All the visible and invisible heavenly bodies produce in resonance this all pervading pressure-field, which seems to increase with ever smaller dimensions. The shorter the wavelength, the more momentum it carries, the higher the pressure. That we don’t feel that pressure is the same as that we don’t feel the atmospheric pressure around us which is dramatically shown in the famous Magdeburger Hemispheres, where two span of 8 horses could not pull apart two vacuous hemispheres of 50 cm diameter. That is the pressure we live in without feeling it, believe me, there are higher pressures we don’t feel.
Two span of 8 horses cannot pull the vacuum spheres apart
That an electromagnetic field carries momentum and thus has considerable inertia seems overlooked (Dark Matter) by scientists, because of the ‘Nothingness’ of ’empty space’, and the wave without a medium. (In Wikipedia on relativity ‘ether’ is now equal to ‘nothingness’, all thanks to ‘special relativity theory’ and its parlance)
The essence of a wave is its ‘momentum’, that is: ‘velocity times mass’, and this can only be carried by a medium. in fact electromagnetic fields carry momentum, are momentum. Waves are momentum, because they move a medium, stir other things. The higher the wave the more mass it carries, this is the volume and energy of its momentum, still the substance remains in the same place.
The wave has no self-substance
Just imagine a wave rolling to the beach, its momentum is just as big as the volume of water it is able to move, this hangs initially together with the force of the wind, but even when the wind is gone the waves still carry its momentum, it is kind of stored in the volume of moving water. But now be attentive, because this is the crucial thing: the wave moves the seawater only up and down , it does not take the water with it, neither does it take you when you are in there as you know (except in the breaker, the collapse of the wave), what goes through you as feeling of the passing wave is the up and down, the wave uses the water, and you in there, to carry its momentum, but it has no ‘eigen-substance’ (self-substance), the wave is the momentum carried by the medium, it is the push of the gaseous wind over the liquid water, because there must be a medium to carry momentum, the medium materializes the wave, by carrying it as momentum. If we understand this thoroughly we can also see that any ‘object’ is just a bundle of waves carried by the deep-field and that no object has an ‘Eigen-substance’, which is the centre of my argument. We are only waves, we have no ‘own’ substance, our substance is ‘space’, ’emptiness’.
Energy sustains space
All the energy which is radiated out in space is needed for the very sustenance of space, because the space-pixalls need to be fed to keep their wave fields intact, otherwise space itself collapses as in the black hole, a border point of space, which eventually absorbs an old star or galaxy, as it ‘dies’. Space is internally bordered by the essence of matter, a vortex obscuring the pure light, the zero-dimension. Every object is, after all, a border point of free space, it occupies space and gives it an ‘inside’, but where is ‘your inside’, all that ‘matter’ of you, where is it located; without looking around, you would have no idea. You can see our 3-D world is the inside of a horn-torus (below) and we walk on the contracted inside surface of that torus, thinking we walk on the surface of a solid sphere below us. Every point in our space is like the border point of the zero-dimension which pervades everything but has no dimension. The pure light sparkles in every point of space, we are made of light, if only we would see.
‘Corus’ (Horn-torus), this surface is bordered by one point in the centre, inside and outside.
Geometry of universe and space-pixall
The best way to visualise this border point of our space is by imagining the volume of a ‘corus’ (horn-torus, 2.ᴨ².r³, Einstein’s 4th dimension !) as our universe, this universe is bordered by one point in the centre and it is this one point, in every point of space, which keeps us unaware of the ‘dimensionless pure light void’ which surrounds us and connects us because it is One in every point of space. The space-pixall is hiding the ‘pure light’ in its heart, the pure light is all pervading emptiness itself, the zero-dimension, like the white of the page around the pictured torus and the blackness of the centre zero-point.(above). Every surface of our our everyday world is the surface on the inside of the horn-torus, around it the emptiness of the zero-dimension of pure light.
I will use the model of the torus surface to explain the contraction and expansion of space in a steady state model of the universe. In my model the whole universe is a torus, but not necessarily like the one below.
The surface of the torus is the answer to the question of the expansion of space. Three quarters of the ‘corus’ surface is convex , means: in a state of expansion and one quarter is concave means: in a state of contraction; but nothing moves, it is just a state of space in which the geodesics contract and expand, which, when wrongly interpreted, gives the idea of seemingly expanding space, where only the fabric of space is changing, the deep-field density and the permittivity-speed of the field (red shifts).
Concept gravity wrong
My analysis of the solar system (see: Solar system resonances) shows the prevailing concept of gravity must be wrong because it cannot explain that the 9-fold dominates the orbital resonances of the system, but crucially that the ratios of the masses of the planets themselves are also in that 9-fold resonance. This whole concept of resonance is alien to science at the moment when it comes to gravity, because gravity is, notwithstanding Einstein’s geometry, still seen as a ‘force’, whereas in fact it emerges as the lack of something, that is, lack of counter-pressure.
In my approach gravity is the effect of the ‘lee-field’ of an object and this ‘lee-field’ of any massive object creates a ‘depression’ and ‘contraction’ respectively in the pressure and the density of the cosmic deep-field. The lee-field of an object is thus a depression in the general field, because each object absorbs pressure by rotation and so shields its vicinity from general cosmic field-pressure, at the same time it structures this spherical lee-field geometrically by a partly toroidal ‘reflection-field’ with high resonance, which results in an equatorial standing wave-field, as we see it in the ring-fields around, especially, Saturn, showing extreme rigidity in its equatorial plane (1km thick over 280,000km diameter) but also other planets and of course the Solar System centred on the sun itself.
Since the deep-field pressure ‘hits’ every object spherically the object transforms this impact through rotation by creating a toroidal transverse reflection field. It is not so difficult to associate the outward-rolling torus as the essence of the momentum of the wave. When energies collide in a point, they create a border-point of space from which energy bounces back, this energy is the torus geometry, sphere and torus are the essence of the transformation of space. The torus just does not play a fundamental part in science’s picture, most scientists don’t know the formula for a torus by heart (try it!, they’ll tell you they can derive it) whereas in my picture it is the essence of the spindle-torus as geometry of rotation as we see it in the equatorial bulge of inertia of a rotating body, like stars and planets (Saturn -> 10:9= equ:pol).
A nuclear explosion is in fact local destruction of the deep-field, the gigantic pressure in every point of space is unleashed by the destruction of the space-pixalls constituting the nuclei taking part in the fission. So the space-pixall turns inside out and dissolves in a gigantic release of pressure. This explosion has a toroidal shape.
The most dramatic natural example of a giant explosion showing toroidal vacuum at the very centre is the meteorite that exploded in 1908 over Tunguska in Siberia at several hundred metres height in the atmosphere. At the epicentre of the blast all trees were still standing, stripped, but upright, no side-ward pressure, but in a ring around it the damage is still visible today, a hundred years on, the red ring shows the torus of destruction. (Scientists have no explanation for this torus-phenomenon, though also at the epicentre of the Hiroshima bomb the memorial building is still standing)
The geometry of the reflection field, the transformation of spherical wave-fields into transverse wave-fields is the most fundamental mechanism in nature and determines the reflection-field of the object and its emerging inertial field.
We have to appreciate that every object is extended in the deep-field far beyond its appearance (with a sharp enough lens you are visible from space) this is its (your) reflection field, the beginning of which may show in the aura. It is a standing wave field, which is at the same time an inertial field and its ‘con-firmation’ of the deep-field, it adds to the stability (inertia) of the whole. So every aspect of the transformation sustains the whole as an organic process and this is also reflected in the energy equilibrium like the cosmic micro wave background radiation (CMBR) at 2.73 degrees Kelvin, 1/100 of melting ice at 273 degrees K (1 + 99), but coincidence, of course.
In my approach we see the cosmos as a self-contained integrated whole in which every aspect has, or reflects, a function. In the BigBang cosmology though everything runs in separate categories from a contingent beginning to a fading end, like an old fashioned alarm-clock unwinding its spring and ‘freezing in silence’. Instead my perceived cosmos is preferably cyclical, continuous and only locally entropic whereas the Big-Bang universe is blind and contingent, our universe ‘sees’ and has ‘purpose’, even if only it were to preserve ‘continuity’, but most of all our cosmos is ‘intelligent’ and ‘formative’. We see logic everywhere in nature, a logic of harmony and of beauty, a logic of economy, of how everything is recycled, nothing is wasted.
How nothing gets lost, until completed. (Law of Karma).
The imperturbable rest of the deep-field is the basis of uniform motion, as in waves, and as is manifest in the electromagnetic fields which all have the same local speed depending on the condition (curvature) of local space. The uniform inertial motion of any object is the objects natural resonance with the deep-field, it is embedded in the motion of the field, because it is made of it. As soon as outside pressure is applied, the deep-field resists change by slowness, inertia. Inertia is in that sense the ‘stretching of time’, it is ‘slowing-motion’. But it is also the transfer of energy by increasing momentum of the object through increase of excited pixalls involved in the movement at any one moment. The higher the speed of an object, the stronger the inertial field by increasing numbers of space pixalls being involved at the same time, the higher the wind the higher the waves, thus increasing the ‘substance’ and thus the momentum.
Momentum is stored in the deep-field as the momentum of an ocean wave is stored in its movement, the more volume the wave has, the bigger its momentum and still the water (the medium) does not move, but up and down, in a cycle, the wave has no eigen-substance, is only momentum.
This is why momentum can be transferred in ‘entrainment’ (Huygens), (transfer of momentum and phase through space) because there is a medium; how could it be transferred through ’empty space’, this is a crucial argument for an ether
Lorentz commenting on Einsteins ‘absolute relativity’ wrote: “I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter.” (Lorentz, 1906)
This is the Cartesian view, which was held by most scientists, who nearly all presupposed an ether to explain the fact that space can transmit a force and waves of light. Newton even stated that no one in his right mind could entertain the idea that force could be transmitted through empty space, but Einstein convinced the whole scientific community that you can, through curvature of space, that is of ‘Nothingness’.
Here it is important to see that in our approach matter is an ‘excitation’ of the deep-field and that we have always to consider the paradox of the moving form through the ‘unmoving’ medium. The substance of the form is anchored, at rest, in the deep-field, this is its inertia, this is why the electro-magnetic field speed (light) is always constant relative to the object. Its substance does not move relative to the waves of the field, how could it, it is made of these waves. This is the puzzling paradox of a body’s substance at rest in the same frame of reference as in which its shape is moving, just like the moving shapes on an immobile pixel-screen.
This is a different approach from the Minkowski-Einstein explanation with regard to curvature of space-time, but it confirms that in a profound sense we are at rest in the deep-field, because it is the stuff we are made of; this is quite different from Einstein’s insistence on an inertial frame for every individual thing, which could be seen as my idea of ‘inertial fields’. The ‘separate thing’ does not exist in the deep-field, it is like the volume of a wave, the momentum, it has no eigen-substance. I am often very close to Einstein’s insights, because he became aware general relativity cannot do without a medium, but was not listened to anymore in that respect, all too happy as scientists were to have gotten rid of that persistent antique concept of intangible ‘aether’.
All objects will move in the direction of least resistance in the deep-field, because of the omnipresent cosmic pressure-front of cosmic radiation, generated by the energy fields of the galaxies, neutron stars etc, so bodies will move in the direction of each others ‘lee-field’. The push of the cosmic pressure field, which secures uniform motion in the neutral deep-field, causes the acceleration in the lee-field of the object, the closer to the object the less the resistance of the counter-pressure from that direction, which falls off with the square (surface: r^2) of the distance (radius: r), and the higher the acceleration, even though the pressure of the general deep-field does not change. (It is G and very weak). So ‘gravity’ (heaviness) is more caused by a lack of force rather than an act of force, but it is in fact an imbalance in the cosmic pressure field. This imbalance shows in the ‘curvatures’ of the ‘elastic’ deep-field, but is better expressed as local contraction or expansion of space, where the strength of the inertia in the deep-field, the permittivity of the medium, decides over the speed of a process. So with a proper use of the term inertia as the cause of a time-frame, we can probably make the concept of time in physics obsolete and have a definition of inertial space. QED. (The ‘proof of relativity in GPS’ is due to the difference in ‘gravity’ on earth and in outer space, that is: the intensity of the lee-field, the state of the deep-field; no ‘time’-dilation, it is deep-field-dilation)
The major and decisive difference between my model and the Bigbang is, that mine shows cyclical (rhythmic) and continuous order (‘permanent creation’), whereas the BigBang is a sudden origin out of nowhere, with no mention of order, no explanation of what is now (as order), but winding down eventually into disorder (entropy, linear time). So they know everything of the beginning and of the end, but cannot connect it to the world we live in. It is maybe misplaced to call that ‘cosmology’, it’s theoretical astrophysics.
Whereas scientists are again and again baffled by the subtle order of the processes in Nature, this bewilderment originates in their ignorance of the cyclical and objectively ‘intelligent’ character of the Universe and Nature as a whole, because of harmonics. Cosmos means order, Chaos means disorder. Overall we see order, not chaos, chaos is at the lower levels and in the struggle for life, cosmos is when you look up to the night sky, huge silent order.
Stone Age people may have known this and seen the deep harmony of the cosmos which they sought to express in the mathematically harmonic designs of their ‘megalithic works’, their ‘cosmic architecture’, which appear to hold the principles of resonance.
Stars and Black Holes
What is interesting about the mathematical approach is that ‘mass’ is ignored and everything centers on what happens to points in space and their connections. This makes it immediately related to my model of space-pixalls and the mathematical foundation of reality. Riemann used the term ‘Stoff’ (dust, stuff) for the (liquid) aether which he presupposed, take note that Riemann thought granular [the liquidity of dust, the vortex of the hourglass, this is the mechanics of space (-pixalls), stretched in time, the black hole as the vortex of a galaxy].
The black hole cools the cosmos as the star heats it up, it is equilibrium in a process of regeneration. There is no conservation of energy, it is a constant stream of renewal in equilibrium with decay, but, yes, very big cycles. The Second Law is more an aspect of local decay, not a deterministic overall law, I intuit. We see in this black hole geometry the vortex, which has the dynamics of a torus, perpendicular circling creating the abyss, the cyclone.
Cyclone is like galaxy
It is similar to magnetic field lines towards a negative pole. The black hole is a 4-D monopole. It is interesting in this respect that the amount of entropy which is supposed to be in the spherical black hole is 1/4 of its surface area. Nobody mentions that this means a reduction of 1 dimension since the spherical surface as border of 3-D space gets as ‘information’ compressed into a flat one-sided 2-D circle area, ᴨ.r², since the spherical surface is 4 times the great circle area = 4.ᴨ.r²
In my view this implies the black hole is not spherical but a one-sided flat disc, so to speak, a monopole, the border-point of 3-D space, opening to the zero-dimension. It seems to me this 1/4 reduction is rather important but nobody seems to notice it. It could also signify the 1/4 concave surface of the horn-torus Space is limited on the inside by the zero-dimension, so a sphere becomes a one-sided circle surface with respect to the zero-dimension. The earth has no centre, no signals can penetrate it through the heart, they all bounce off because there is no other side to the centre, it is outside 3-D space, it is the zero-point as border-point of space.(Look at the ‘corus’ again)
Horn-torus or Corus
Here the importance of the torus-geometry and especially the horn-torus becomes apparent. What makes the horn-torus unique as mathematical form is that on the one hand its surface area is bounded by one single center-point and on the other it is also expressed in a 2-D square. These two unique properties give it a special relation to the sphere which properly speaking is also a unique moment in the torus-geometry and transformation of space. In my conception of the geometry and dynamics of space the torus is pivotal, because it is the geometry of rotation. Although stars and planets look spherical they are due to their rotation flattened and consequently in my system spindle-tori. This rotation is also the origin of the waves it causes in its surroundings which are then carried by the deep-field and form a reflection field which is at the same time the ‘lee-field’ of an object. It is the ‘pressure-gravity’ emerging in the depression of the deep-field, the ‘lee’ around an object, which keeps everything rotating. The rotation absorbs the pressure and emits this energy as waves by which it shapes the geometry of the deep-field in its vicinity. So the objection of (over-)heating (Lorentz himself abandoned his own idea for this), which is held against this model is not valid, the absorbed energy is transformed into reflection wave-fields, which indeed affect the geometry of inertial space.