Scroll Down USING ARROWS IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS PAGE (TO THE RIGHT OF MENU ITEMS) TO SEE THE OTHER POSTS FOR APRIL.

FOR OTHER TOPICS, CLICK DIRECTLY ON MENU ITEMS.

 

 

For the month of April, there will be short postings each day starting with topics (mostly discussed before, here on this blog). The topics will start with A and end, on the last day of the blog challenge, with topics starting with the letter Z. All information is based on S.B.K Burns’ droplet research into the nature of an expanding two-dimensional universe, and what that may tell us about form and function, life and death. Lots of things to think about for authors in creating their science fiction worlds.

PLEASE LEAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER SCIENTIFIC TOPICS YOU’D LIKE TO BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND IN SIMPLE TERMS.

A list of A to Z topics and the blog posts are given below:

April 1, 2018  A: Analog (One thing that is comparable to another. Perhaps, the same physical behavior, but at a different energy level). The droplet experiment (The Experiment) presented here (The Union of Opposites Website) is an analog of the accretion disc of a star, which means the behavior is very similar to what happens as planets form around a sun. The experiment accurately predicts that smaller stars will produce smaller planets all of the same size (like the Trappist I Solar System with seven Earth-sized planets).

Another analog is the tension in a boundary between two fluids and gravitational tension in the universe. If we know what the formula for one universal behavior (ex: surface tension, curvature), we can guess at how another behavior (ex: gravitational tension, curvature) might operate. In this way analogs can be quite helpful in understanding the results of our experiments, especially in cosmological situations where it is impossible to run such experiments in the laboratory.

Alzheimer’s; Atwood Ratio (important in primitive cell division and how planets form around suns); Archeo-bacteria (the first cellular life on Earth and, perhaps, with its hundred thousand year life cycle will gobble up all our excess carbon).

April 2, 2018 B: Boundary (helps us to understand how our universe comes into being through change): It is possible to understand our universe through the realization that nothing exists without change, and the least description of change is a boundary. A boundary can be a discrete line across which something happens. In my experiment, I have a droplet that has a boundary that is expanding and isn’t just smooth because of the high surface tension in water (the meniscus between water and oil). Not all boundaries are smooth, but if a boundary is smooth (and in some kind of tension) then information may transfer across it. As information crosses our universal boundary, its shape changes (and its function changes with its form). Our research suggests that the first living cell makes use of this boundary to develop a membrane that completely splits it in half. Because flow is different inside and outside an expanding boundary, the universe can come into existence as it changes its form and its boundary buckles (goes unstable: is open to the growth of random perturbations/sine-waves).

Without instability of a boundary, nothing can happen. For example, it is nearly impossible for information to cross the surface boundary of a black hole because its massive curvature makes it stable. No matter how we try to perturb a stable boundary, it damps out all information. So all action and life in our universe is a product of an unstable boundary, one that can change in space and time.

Relational philosophies speak of relationships across boundaries. As two things interact, they form boundaries between them. But in our universe, from its beginning (a Big Bang coherent singularity source?) there are first fuzzy boundary relationships formed (quarks, subatomic particles, atos) and then, the boundaries become discrete objects that themselves relate to one another across their own boundaries (as the universe cools, as the outward expansion slows).

 Holdover: Bliss (Does it exist as a state of nature?)

April 3, 2018 C: Conscious Awareness (From simple experience with little memory, to awareness, to long duration self-awareness).

On April 1, we discussed how our published experiment of a two-dimensional, expanding droplet could be looked at like an analog of experiments (in the cosmos) that might be too difficult to perform in laboratories on Earth. The changes that we model in physical behaviors of our universe can be calculated from the historic General Energy Equation  (TGEE)(see descriptions in blue for full glossary of these A to Z posts). When we solve the equation, we discover how a relational boundary changes with time. This change in form and function in the universe is called self-ordered criticality.

So how does this Equation, this self-ordered criticality, feed into the stuff of the universe—the boundary of the universe becoming aware of itself, becoming conscious?

As time passes, the perfectly circular stable boundary (doesn’t change in shape or form). In this state, the stable state, no energy can cross the boundary to affect it, so, also, no information can cross it. There is no reason to store energy, because primitive memory relies on some change (and there is no change when a droplet or the universe (just before The Big Bang) changes (either the boundary is too curved and the tension in the boundary (interfacial or gravitational) caused by that curvature is too great).

When the droplet or universe explodes out in The Big Bang, the relational boundary becomes unstable in space and time. Now changes can occur and the boundary is open to tiny random pushes and pulls that exist everywhere (part of the statistical nature of the universe). The relational boundary changes with all the pushes and pulls. With each thing that happens across the relational boundary, memories of the changes are recorded at each point in time, and new changes in boundary shape continue to change the shape of the outward boundary (superimpose themselves on the past shapes/memories) as the boundary continues to record what happens in its now.

But the most important question about how the universe orders itself might be that the relational boundary we’ve been speaking about begins to recognize itself in time. But how can that be? Think of cars streaming down a highway. If we were in a helicopter above, we’d see that some cars are closer together than others. We’d also see that some of these traffic jams last for a while. What we see in our statistical universe is that smaller jams are shorter lived than longer jams, smaller particles from an exploded planet (asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter) are more numerous than larger particles. So the longer a complex structure in the relational boundary holds together, the better chance that structure has in processing about itself in time.

So, awareness, especially self awareness, can only occur in the improbability of longer and longer jams in space-time (just because something is improbable doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). We need these more complex boundaries in order to bring the whole self-organizing process inward, as we do, the entire universe becomes aware, bit by bit, brain by brain. Notice that the human brain, the relational boundary of the brain is not spherical like the skull, but invaginated upon itself (folded in upon itself, providing a larger and larger boundary for information transfer and memory formation). Of course, as brains endure through forced cellular structure and genetics, while our relational boundary is expanding in time, it contains the entire history of the universe. So the relational boundary orders itself and becomes capable of changing its shape in space and time depending on how the rest of it is changing. When parts of the relational boundary are stable in their functioning for a period of time, then they have the ability to process information within themselves, across their own boundaries.

So now that we have these complex places along the universal boundary that we call human brains, that exhibit self awareness, we wonder if they can occur in other places in the universe besides Earth, and that’s how The Drake Equation (the equation that isn’t really an equation) came about. That’s tomorrow’s word.

Reminder: Without your questions about these A to Z explanations (when they are not clear to you) we cannot work together to clarify them. That’s the main reason for blogging these ideas, rather than putting them in a book right away.

April 4, 2018 D:  Drake Equation (Chance of meeting up with aliens).

What we know up until this point: Our published experiment of a two-dimensional fluid-fluid relational boundary has been proven both in the laboratory and mathematically through The General Energy Equation for normal space and time. The experiment is an analog of other behaviors in our universe that may be too difficult to experiment on in relativistic time and space. Our experiment suggest that the most numerous stars, smaller than our sun (type M) may form accretion disks (looking like Saturn’s rings) of matter about them that will produce a number of equally spaced smaller planets (Trappist I, for example). So that there are probably many Earth-like planets in the habitable zone in our universe. The experiment also shows how a pre-living droplet can naturally and easily divide in half. Now all we need are nucleic acid molecules to get caught up into these cleaving precursor cells, then natural selection, and we have life.

Okay, so, The Drake Equation is an algebraic “equation” that multiplies factors together (the probabilities of finding life on planets around suns in our galaxy). N is equal to the number of intelligent civilizations out there. So far, since we don’t really know that much about exactly what factors to use, or the amount of each factor, we are left with a lot of unknowns, and so it is impossible to get accurate results. To learn more about the factors like how many habitable planets have at least cellular life, or how many have what we think of as intelligent life, or how many suns in our galaxy have Earth-sized planets in the proper Goldilocks Zone (a distance from their sun so as to have water and support life is not known, but we’re learning more each day. The big problem with The Drake Equation is that not only don’t we know the number of factors, but if any or all of them are less than one, then they diminish the number of predicted civilizations out there.

In order to get a more accurate use of the Drake equation, I suggest we assume there is another civilization out there. With our radio telescopes what we’re trying to make is contact (to get a better feel for this idea you might want to read CONTACT the book by an astronomer Carl Sagan whose main character Jill Tarter (a real radio astronomer with SETI (The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) suggests a first alien encounter via radio waves (radio waves are long energy waves that pass through lots of matter, so we can see farther into our galaxy).

So let’s say there are two civilizations (N=2: Us and Them). Since WWII (1935) our radio signals have reached planets orbiting suns that are about 80 light years away. If our radio and television signals (also radio waves) were to beam out from the Earth spherically (360 degrees in all directions), the signals would lose intensity but they would reach all suns 80 light years out. To receive a signal from another civilization, we’d have to wait twice the distance to the planet in years to receive an answer. So far we haven’t received a signal from stars in that 80 light year radius. We have discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting M-class Proxima Centauri (the closest star to our sun = 4 light years away), but we haven’t heard back from them. There are many reasons for not hearing back from another civilization. The signal hasn’t gotten there yet, the signal is too weak, our detection of the signal is not good enough, and others (see Fermi’s Paradox to learn about other possible reasons that we haven’t made contact). But according to my way of manipulating The Drake Equation, the other civilization learns about us first, then it has the prerogative to answer or not for a variety of reasons (again, see Fermi’s Paradox).

 April 5.2018 E: Experimental Space (WHAT IS vs WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS)

We know our expanding droplet in two dimensions may be analogous to how the universe expands. Starting with random sine wave perturbations on a perfectly circular expanding universe/droplet (a buckling of the relationship boundary, so it is no longer circular, wave crests and  wave troughs abounding). Understanding how this droplet expands may bring us closer to understanding tension (both gravitational and interfacial) that arises on the relationship boundary of the universe (possibly the source of what astrophysicists call dark matter or dark energy).

In taking in all of the things mentioned so far about our experiment and how it points us in the direction of learning more about our universe, we must stop and understand the term I coined in my journal article: Experimental Space.

For us humans, believe it or not, for us, Experimental Space is all that exists. We live in a virtual reality of the mind, and so anything we conceive, like experiments (especially experimental setups (tools we use to collect data so we can see what’s going on) educates our WHAT IS (a term coined by the philosopher/psychologist J. Krishnamurti which refers to the explicit or explained). What we really want to know is WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS. Sadly, whether we like it or not, we may never know what lurks there (that is what J. Krishnamurti’s friend physicist David Bohm calls the Implicit Order (the implied or potential existence).

As scientists, all the experiments we perform are on explanations we’ve already conceived of (great approximations to how our universe works (mostly mathematical), but not the whole picture). As experimenters, we may never know the whole picture. But we can manipulate experimental space and deduce models of the universe which may be useful and work for a time.

So, all we know about space and time involves the probability that we can forecast how the universe behaves, most of the time.

The universe is thought to expand, because we see a redshift as we (in our part of the universe) expand away from stars as they appeared in the past. The expansion of space most probably is the reason for the gravitational tension between places expanding and places of inertia (black holes, stars, planets) that resist being pushed outward.

The importance of understanding Experimental Space is that thermodynamically, we can study the universe not just from the viewpoint of humans, but from the viewpoints of other objects/systems/relationship-boundaries. What is so important about other viewpoints or perspectives on the universe is similar to the importance of having two eyes. With two eyes we have a clearer perspective on our environment (We can judge distances better. We get closer to what works most of the time).

So what about reality? Is there one absolute reality that we can see and understand as we look around our environment? There exists in perspective (depending on who’s perspective it is) a spectrum from real to virtual. Near The Big Bang, the supposed beginning of the universe, there were very direct changes on the first relational boundary formed (maybe subjectively through temperature-change/energy-flow) and so, objects/systems/boundaries might experience something closer to real (but unfortunately the experiences are short lived). In order for intelligence/conscious-experience to survive and grow, the relationship boundary needed to isolate and create its own model of reality (virtuality).

[Note: The relationship boundary that we have already described is not an outer boundary. There may not be an outer boundary of the universe, because our relationship boundary that brings all things into existence is subjective and quickly differentiates into potential virtual outcomes (experiences across the boundaries). Relationship boundaries and universal boundaries in our Experimental Space can be thought of as mathematical sets or probabilities of existence depending on who’s looking (the perspective/experience of the observed object/system/relational-boundary). Philosopher Deleuze’s definition of virtuality suggests that what is virtual is also real. But that depends on who’s looking. So, virtual reality only seems real to the object/system/boundary that’s doing that’s observing its world.]

So anything we describe or explain is part of our virtual reality, our Experimental Space. In that way, when we say the universe is expanding, do we know whether there is a real expansion at play, or does our data indicate an expansion in Experimental Space (an expansion of the subjective relational boundaries of the systems studied)? Could the acceleration of universal expansion (the ever-changing and increasing length of the relationship boundary) be due to the increase of inward boundaries in systems like intelligent brains? Only unstable inwardly buckled boundaries can eventually change to store information.

Because all we know is Experimental Space (WHAT IS), we will never know to 100% accuracy WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS. Through experiment and observation, we can only create models of what things look like and how they behave.

Holdovers E: (1A) Summary (3)Expansion (of the relational boundary of the universe [Bohm/Implicit/Explicit/Red Shift due to what?]) (1)Experimental Space (To us, the only space there is.); (2) Error (nothing exists without it).

April 6, 2018 F: Finite and Infinite Games: A finite game is one where there are preset, agreed-upon rules resulting in a winner and a loser. An infinite game is one in which the participants are tasked with furthering the play.

So guess what game our universe seems to play?

Another “E” word is ENTROPY. Entropy is the running down of available energy to do some kind of organized work. When the universe starts out, exploding into existence, it has all kinds of potential, but it must cool somewhat for the first thing/object/relational-boundary to condense.

Lets hop on into the future of the universe and we find that at each energy level, for each force that arises, there is some new change across the boundary. There is a limited lifespan for this new force until entropy is reached. With each force and each kind of energy flowing across the boundary there are limits because that particular language (the atom, the molecule, the body, the brain has its own entropic limit, as it runs out of available energy in its environment).

Our experiment shows how in a world of random buckling of our droplet interface, there is another process that changes the pattern of distribution of universal matter called self-ordering. Somehow the self-ordering reaches a critical state (self-ordered criticality). This is how quantum states (like in the number of protons and electrons in each atom) arise. The same thing happens with the buckling of our droplet.

From whatever initial conditions predate the expansion of the our universe (WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS) a universe expands and changes, growing dendritically until all energy is lost. The same can be seen in crystal growth of frost from water on a freezing window pane, or the limbs of a tree forking into smaller and smaller branches.

A universe playing a finite game would be a stillborn universe. The universe discovers every way possible to become a distributed pattern (through some form of energy) and then to recognize that pattern in time. And so the universe always furthers the play, finds as many ways as possible to continue its existence (an INFINITE GAME).

Holdovers; Fermi’s Paradox. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi (Women Scientist Series) [Fourier/Foucault]

September 7, 2018 G: Gaia (Earth is alive!)

Our two-dimensional droplet universe predicts what sort of planets will arise through natural self-ordering from a star’s accretion disk. It also predicts that cellular life is ubiquitous. But what about living cells. What constitutes life? And why do some say Earth is alive?

In ancient Greek mythology, Gaia represents Mother Earth. Modern ecological theory of life on Earth is given by Wikipedia as:

The mythological name was revived in 1979 by James Lovelock, in Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth; his Gaia hypothesis was supported by Lynn Margulis. The hypothesis proposes that living organisms and inorganic material are part of a dynamical system that shapes the Earth‘s biosphere, and maintains the Earth as a fit environment for life. In some Gaia theory approaches, the Earth itself is viewed as an organism with self-regulatory functions. Further books by Lovelock and others popularized the Gaia Hypothesis, which was embraced to some extent by New Age environmentalists as part of the heightened awareness of environmental concerns of the 1990s.

For us, on The Union of Opposites website, we are looking for evidence that our Earth which teams with life, is somehow itself, alive.

A bit of data that most of us aren’t taught in biology class, or from our biology books, is that over half of all life on Earth is not on its surface, but in its crust. Most of life in Earth exists in quasi-stasis (sometimes in statis/sometime found living), some yet to be discovered (could these be the missing links to how life arose on Earth or elsewhere? Or how Earth’s atmosphere was formed?)

Let’s come back to the possible reason for so much life/biomass  in Earth’s crust and go back to how genetic material (that tells living cells how to operate) got into living cells, helping them reproduce in a myriad of ways.

Many archeo biologists and astrobiologists believe that genetic material formed either on slopes of early active volcanoes, or through panspermia (raining down on the Earth from an outer planet or intergalactic clouds). Nucleotides that can develop into genetic material have been found on the before-mentioned places. If a large, failed sun like Jupiter is required in a solar system with a living planet, then smaller M-class suns (like Trappist I with its seven Earths) will not have enough energy to produce Jupiter-like planets. And, so, if a Jupiter-sized planet is required to rain down genetic material on an Earth-like planet in its Goldilocks orbit around its sun (orbit at a distance where heat is enough to produce liquid water), then the star required to produce a living Earth must be larger than M-class (G-class like our sun) for its accretion disk to produce initially close and large planets. Once the large Jupiter-like planets are formed in log-jams close to their star, then they move outward, and, possibly rain their soup of complex molecules down on the inner planets.

Okay, so now we have an idea for the conditions necessary to produce life on an inner planet: natural division of inner water-based droplets, coated in an oil-based environment (as in our droplet experiment). We know that approximately 75% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water and that water can be found in water tables within the crust. So we should not be surprised that so much life coats Earth. We know about life cycles of single and multicellular organisms on Earth’s surface and in its oceans, but what about the over 50% of all living material in stasis within the crust. What can be its possible use?

Just now scientists are discovering that these ancient single-celled organisms have very large life cycles. Some the length of the ice age cycle (every 100, 000 years). On a regular basis, three things interact in order to start each ice age: the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun (eccentricity (zero eccentricity is a circular orbit/an eccentricity of one (1) is an ellipse)), the precession of the Earth’s axis (Earth leans over about 23 and 1/2 degrees toward or away from the sun), and insolation from regular or freak solar cycles.

Today the Earth’s orbit is almost perfectly circular (same distance from the sun in summer and winter), but if in 80,000 years the Earth’s orbit become elliptical and its north pole angles away from the sun (the winter), and it’s farther from the sun, and the sun is cooler (no sunspots), then is when an ice age will initiate. Some scientists think those conditions are not severe enough to cause or stop ice ages from freezing Gaia. The more that is learned about the primitive one-celled spores that are in abundance in Earth, the more clues we’ll have about how the climate Earth changes, perhaps even due to life deep within its rocks.

Holdover: General Energy Equation (an algebraic equation that can be solved using calculus and complex numbers (generating the location and flow of the relational, expanding, droplet boundary (the two perspectives involved in The Uncertainty Principle).This equation was derived by mathematicians and scientist throughout history, but first applied in fluids by Claude-Louis Navier, a French engineer and physicist who specialized in mechanics of fluids. The French so proud of him that they inscribed his name in the Eiffel Tower.,

April 8, 2018 H: Human-Centered Thinking (How it makes all our hard-won solutions incredible fails).

 We know what human thought is—because that’s what us humans do—we think. We know what thought itself is, or, at least, I think we do. Most of us believe that other mammals think in a somewhat rudimentary way. We know that all living things, maybe are programed to react to our environment. But what do we mean when we say our thinking can be human-centered? How can us humans think in any other way?

One thing about humans is that we not only have a unique perspective on the world, but at a moments notice we can change that perspective. That behavior in itself makes us unique in the animal kingdom. The animals we truly believe are intelligent on the surface of the Earth are those that can, inspite of how things look, have some ability to change their perspective. For example: the way they look at their problems.

When a raven sees food it can’t get to through a hole, it fashions a tool to help pry the food out. So a change in perspective on a problem allows an animal to better survive.

A human who is not raised to be creative in their problem solving, their ability to change their perspective to solve their problems, is at great risk.

How does the idea of human-centered thinking apply to our approach to finding truths about the world scientifically? When we think that human ways of thinking are the only ways to think, then we miss all the other perspectives of our expanding universe.

1) When observing the behavior of a simple experiment like the expansion of an unstable droplet that may be analogous to the expansion of our own universe, we have to develop our mathematics to appreciate simpler behaviors before we address human-centered prejudices. A droplet does not behave based on our wants and needs, and, yet, much of our scientific approach to the mysteries of the universe are based in human prejudice.

2) John Archibald Wheeler and his grad students (who, years back, I met at a special event at Ga. Tech) came from a perspective that humans were the universe becoming aware of itself. This idea is also mirrored in the strong and weak anthropic theories of the universe. Shall we remind these quite revered (and properly so) scientists that, yes, because man exists, only a certain kind of universe with very special rules can exist. But what about all the other objects and behaviors that exist in our universe? All those things that came before us? All those little beings that react and think and feel? How have they modeled the universe? The universe is theirs too.

So, human-centered thinking occurs for us scientists when we refuse to have empathy for other systems that exist in and are part of the creative energy of our universe. Many times, more primitive systems will give us better clues to how our universe came about (than do more complex ones, systems that are more difficult to understand).

Yet, we continue to wonder about Schrodinger’s Cat (in a human-centered experiment, whether it is alive or dead). We want to objectify everything in a universe that is clearly subjective (if we keenly watch how simpler systems operate).

If we are so into the way us humans see things, then how can there be any objectivity in our sciences? The Double-Slit Experiment is designed to have two perspectives (two vastly different experimental setups) on the way tiny energy packets display themselves. Yet, when physicists analyze the experiment’s outcome (as a perfectly objective controlled experiment), they say that it proves that an energy packet can travel faster than light (which goes against Einstein’s strong proof that light particles travel through space at a terminal velocity). Kind of like saying Schrodinger’s Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. These are human-centered conclusions. We need to go back to the simpler boundaries of our universe to understand how these self-made paradoxes come about.

Humans deal in 100% realities most of the time, but the universe might not.

The scary part of human prejudice in science is that lay people pick up words like faster-than-light, dark energy, black holes, and quasars without really knowing what they mean. There are many Facebook groups out there that claim to be scientific, but none of those who seem fascinated by scientific terminology they don’t understand have yet to realize that to self-educate, they only need to open a textbook or browse the Internet to find definitions to scientific terms or answers to their questions, even if they are from a part of the world where they cannot afford a formal education.

April 9, 2018 I: Incoming (Filtering out the possibilities).

How in a nonhuman-centered way can we look at the formative process of our universe that brought us into being?

To answer the above question and define what I mean by Incoming, I need to revisit certain ideas gleaned from my two-dimensional expanding droplet experiment. The expanding drop changes its shape in time and may be analogous in its behaviors to the expansion of our universe.

As the unstable droplet grows, the curvature of its relational boundary changes, and, because of that, the way it interacts across its boundary changes. The changes cannot be predicted precisely, just like the self-ordering of other universal systems (like the repeated traffic jam densities of cars along an expressway) are statistical.

Besides the universal outcome being statistical, lets see what those statistics act on (Incoming) to change the droplet boundary and the universe:

Forms and functions of our universal relationship boundary benefit in their stable existence by how large, how complex, and how long of duration they are. If we only looked at thoughts and how they form, we’d have to go back to those logjams of traffic. The more complex a system/object/relational-boundary the more its processes remain stable and the longer duration of its existence.

A very large traffic jam could be one like a massive body with gravitational forces and curvature so great that it cannot develop complexity because information cannot change its shape or cross its boundary—no relationship. But if the language that builds the agglomeration of possibilities (like a traffic jam), the relational boundary/object/system will allows information to cross and change the boundary itself.  A robust language may maintain that system in greater and greater duration and self-awareness. The human brain is an example of such a complex system (of the universe’s relational boundary).

So, in this context that we’ve discussed, where a language emerges from the available energy that helps to sustain and grow the relationship boundary, then longer and longer self-awareness may arise.

One of these languages, on the way to human thought, might be the covalent bonding of the carbon atom. The language, as we discussed, is robust because of all the ways the atom can combine with other atoms in chains, leading to many outcomes, like proteins and genetic material.

However, the Incoming is like an environment of potential thought that an individual creates around them. Because the universe and its outcome is statistical, this Incoming thought is potential thought (invisible: does not exist at 100%) until an individual’s relationship-boundary/brain filters it out and acts upon it.

So, incoming potential thoughts are based on an individuals history/memory and on thoughts that others may accept in their environment. Perhaps unknowingly, we filter out these incoming potential thoughts, acting on them and thinking about them often.

The more points of view a person entertains, the greater the toolbox of thought, for filtering (in or out) the Incoming, that can be used to solve problems.

The dangers in our human societies are invisible, just as is The Incoming possibilities that we can filter out. If we see violence, or focus on violence all around us, then we have a greater chance of acting on and bringing violence into our lives and into the world.

When we practice TRUST, LOVE, and FREEDOM, we have more Incoming potential thoughts in those areas to select from.

When we love shapes that are part of the process of distrusting or killing others, then those shapes/forms direct discrete functions/actions (for example: hammers elicit behavior toward nails!). And we are invisibly surrounded by Incoming potential of such distrusting weapons and dangers.

A world that concerns itself with all ways of hating, with forms that function as weapons to harm or kill, and when we live in a society that continually reminds us of danger and distrust rather than love and acceptance, then from the invisible, potential Incoming, we can only bring violence into our lives, making our conscious (and even physical) processes more unstable.

A movie that focuses on how to create and use a successful Incoming around us is WHAT THE BLEEP, where a deaf girl who has just lost the love of her life has to find a reason to go on living.

Holdovers: Identity (Why death is such a problem for us humans); Implicit vs Explicit (Their roles in universal expansion).

April 10, 2018 J: Jupiter and Panspermia (Where did all our chromosomes come from?)

One of the factors of the Drake Equation that can suggest how ubiquitous life is in our universe is the chance of a solar system including Earth-like planets. We see that M class stars that are smaller and generate less energy than our G class sun can (like Trappist I) have a whole system consisting of all Earth-sized planets.

Our expanding droplet experiment predicts through its self-organizing structure what might happen in the formation of planets in the accretion disk around the sun (as we said, it also predicts the formation of such equal-sized planets). But is the size of a planet all that is needed in producing life? (We will discuss today the idea of a gas giant like Jupiter being a major player in delivering genetic material to the Earth (panspermia) and whether or not phosphorus is important in the evolution of life,)

But now that we are considering panspermia (that organic material including nucleotides that formed the genetic material residing in the nuclei of most living cells may have formed outside the Earth) we need to know, if the types of planets, and their position, in our solar system is a popular distribution around stars in our galaxy.

According to our expanding droplet, low energy expansions might create equally spaced smaller planets farther out. But larger expansionary flows produce troughs/masses of high curvature closer to their source/sun (the greater the curvature of a relational boundary the greater the forces preventing physical interaction or information flow across that boundary).

A big mystery is how these large planets (maybe failed stars) formed close to their star but then, as in our solar system, seemed to drift outward (to where they are today). Why are we concerned with where Jupiter-sized planets formed? Because from studies to identify planets around stars in our vicinity, we find that the really large planets close to their stars can occlude light from those stars, and, so, their orbital frequency (and distance from their stars) can be found. Most Jupiters were found close to their stars, as opposed to our system where Jupiter-sized planets are found far from their stars. This link will take you to what we know so far (2016) in the distribution of Jupiter-sized planets discovered so far orbiting in the solar systems of other stars.  This study has found that only one in 2000 stars have Jupiters, but 15% of sun-like stars (G type) have Jupiters. Like our experiment, that suggests that larger more energetic stars will have more Jupiter-like planets.

In the above link (Exactly How Unusual Is Our Solar System) we see a graph of the different star types. Notice that our star is barely able to live long enough to allow life to evolve (It took almost half our sun’s life to produce humans). Why is that? The bigger the star, the more energy; the more energy the faster it burns out (That is true everywhere. You will be able to travel for a shorter amount of time burning more gas/energy then if you traveled at a slower rate).

So, we know that only G-type stars can have both Jupiters (that may produce genetic material) and live long enough, so life can evolve on any of its planets.

But, where Jupiter orbits is important as well. We see from the aforementioned link that Jupiter must be outside the orbit of a planet in the Goldilocks zone of liquid water. Why might Jupiters form close to their stars but, then, can be found farther out? A link to THE GREAT MIGRATION tells us how Jupiter might migrate to its present position in our solar system (most of the computer models show a three-dimensional orbital pattern in with the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn interact to drive each other farther away). By our model of an expanding droplet in two-dimensions, we cannot speculate what happens after the self-ordering into planets. But what we can suggest is that the greater the curvature (usually forming close to the source/sun) the easier an outward energy/fluid can take the path of least resistance to flow around the massive-planet/high-curvature-trough (thus, the inertial field around the mass keeps it from moving outward). So what can be the mechanism to drive the larger massive planets outward?

When our droplet goes unstable it first initiates tightly curved troughs close to the source/sun, perhaps analogous to gas giants. Studies have suggested that the next thing to occur to the gas giants is to make these massive planets even more gaseous. That is because the large planets are so heated that the density of their materials is reduced and that changed the curvature of their boundaries (as the analogous interfacial tension would be reduced by an increase in diffusion). So gravitational tension may be reduced and the outward energy flow would be able to push these larger masses farther than it could push them, if the object were much more condensed.

A larger Jupiter-like planet or possibly failed star can then manufacture the elements required to produce genetic material that can rain down on potential inner planets to seed droplets, so they can become the first cells. (We have discussed on this site that our experiments show that when the water-based fluid inside a droplet is surrounded by oil-based fluids (as are many living cells), the cells will divide perfectly in half (unstable offset mode). This type of primitive mitosis is important so that homogeneous genetic material can be reliably transferred from mother to daughter cells.

So now we might know something about how life arose from a fluid mechanics point of view. But what if all the elements of life are not available everywhere in our universe? In biology we learned the atoms important to life by learning the phrase: Chopkins Might Good Cafe (CHOPKINS Mg CaFe). Taking just the letters in CHOPKINS, we see that they all represent elemental atoms that must be present in living cells for our brand of life here on Earth. Recently, it has been phosphorus (P) that has become a problem. All larger (heavier) atoms (like phosphorus) are born in supernovas (when very large stars explode). So far, very small quantities of phosphorus have been found in these explosions.

Options for alien life arising in other solar systems when phosphorus is scarce involve what happens as Jupiter-produced nucleic acids decelerate from Jupiter to other inner planets before they get to Earth. The idea is phosphorus gets more concentrated somewhere along this route.

Another option in light of the scarcity of phosphorus, is that another elemental atom that is similar (has the same number of valence electrons and therefore can bond with the same elements as phosphorus) like arsenic. Arsenic is even found to take the place of phosphorus in living cells.

Because my experiment shows that so much of what happens in forming a solar system is ubiquitous in normal space-time, I tend to believe that G type stars with Jupiter-sized planets as they age, first the Jupiters move outward, then they rain down nucleic acids on their moons and the inner planets where water can exist as a liquid. Droplets “learn” (as unstable expanding droplets appear to learn from their primitive experiences) how to control their reproduction and life continues to evolve.

 Follow on: A follow-on from the discussion of carbon atom language. Latest problems with the theory  Holdovers: Jurassic, Jurassic Park

April 11, 2018 K: Kepler

First we’ll look at Johannes Kepler, most of his work done in the early sixteen hundreds, and then we’ll look at the men who influenced him. Kepler was born into a world where astronomy and astrology hadn’t yet divided into science and the paranormal, respectively.

Look up in the night sky during the full moon through binoculars or telescope, and you’ll see the Tycho Crater, where an asteroid crashed into the moon about 108 million years ago (as confirmed by the Apollo 16 mission). if you follow the debris ejected from the crater site, you’ll see that the debris streams make straight lines all the way to the rim of the moon’s face. Tycho crater is named after astronomer Tycho Brahe who collected the position of stars that later formed a whole compilation of data for Kepler, the astronomer who figured out how all those stars moved, well, most of them.

What did Johannes Kepler discover?

Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion:

1. Law of Orbits: An object (ex:planet) orbits another celestial object (ex:sun) with in an elliptical orbit with the center of gravity of the much larger object (ex:sun) at one of the foci of the ellipse (see link above for illustration).
2. Law of Areas: A radial line (radius) of an orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal times (see link above for illustration).
3. Law of Periods: If you cube half the major axis of the ellipse, you get the square of the number of years the orbit takes (for Earth, since right now the eccentricity of its orbit is approximately zero, that means major axis = minor axis = 1. Half the axis is 1 astronomical unit (about 90 million miles). So 1 cubed is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. The square root of 1 gives us the number of years it takes Earth to orbit the sun (1 year))
4. Eccentricity: Eccentricity is measured from 0 (a perfect circle) to 1 (an ellipse). Today the orbit of Earth is nearly a perfect circle, but its orbit does become elliptical every 100,000 years, and at that time, when its northern axis is pointed away from the sun in the winter, ice ages occur. At that time the semi-major axis is larger than it is today and since Kepler related it to the length of the year, we see that the farther Earth is from the sun in the winter the longer the winter orbit lasts and so the cold climate). [see above link]

When Galileo drew the four moons he saw orbiting Jupiter through his new telescope, Kepler found that his 3 laws, above, were approximately right. His laws formed the basis of Newton’s Law of Gravitational Attraction, derived about a century later.

Black Matter and Energy Mystery: Kepler’s Equations  and Newton’s equation have problems. Here are the problems:

1. Kepler’s Equations only apply to the solar system with one planet. The other existing planets interfere somewhat with his calculations.
2. Newton’s Gravitational Equation only applies in normal space-time and not in relativistic space-time (Einstein’s General and Special Relativity).
3. Even using the Lorentz Transformation to get relativistic values something is wrong in our calculations of stars orbiting the edges of galaxies. they’re moving faster than either Kepler, or Newton, or Einstein predicts.

         a. Maybe some matter is so cool that it can’t be detected.

         b. Maybe we don’t understand how Special Relativity works.

         c. Maybe we don’t understand how universal expansion works.

The expanding droplet experiment covered on this site is analogous to Newton’s Gravitational Equation through surface tension in its boundary (as opposed to gravitational tension, possibly a result of universal expansion between expanding crests and inertial troughs of sine wave perturbations in gravitational fields. If Gravitation and resulting speed of orbit of stars at the lip of galaxies is affected by a relationship across a constant velocity boundary it may be affected by curvature as is surface tension.

With a fluid boundary, we get an idea of how curvature due to uneven expansion can amplify gravitational tension and therefore speed. With any boundary, we find that the curvature amplifies the surface tension, so perhaps curvature of space-time at the edge of galaxies does the same thing to gravitation and the speed it creates.

NASA has two Kepler-named detectors launched that have already begun to tell us lots about how many Earth-sized planets are out there orbiting stars. Soon we might be able to detect the atmosphere of these Earthlike planets (with Kepler II).

 We know that when a planet moves across the face of a star, as seen from Earth, we can calculate the amount of darkening of the star. The most sensitive detectors can now detect planets as small as Earth. Kepler I detector data is now presented on the NASA website.

Kepler II’s task is to answer questions about …

Holdovers: Krishnamurti (A philosophy for contemporary society. How to remove psychic pain).

April 12, 2018   L: Lens

A lens can be glass that is formed and polished in such a way that the light entering it is diffracted, so that what is observed appears to expand or contract. Object details can be filled in because the bigger the diameter of the lens, the more light collected from the source.

In the 1600s, the philosopher Spinoza, the mathematician Leibniz, the astronomer Huygens, the astronomer Galileo perfected lense-making methods. I call that time that somewhat intersected with the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age when there were no sunspots (hot storms) on the cool sun.

It’s hard to think of the pinnacle of technology had to do with fashioning glass into lenses back then, but as the fuzzy image, posted yesterday, from my Nikon digital camera shows fuzzy images and positions of Jupiter moons orbiting the gas giant. The Nikon has a 400 mm glass lens, but also, electronic collection to create an electronic image that we can share and post on our websites.

My first novel in my AGES OF INVENTION SERIES, ENTANGLED, is steampunk in that it suggests lens technology could be used back then to create a light generating computer (a time machine: The Q) that can take human characters back into their past lives. In the story of ENTANGLED, Electress Sophia of The House of Hanover (the almost queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland) controls the light-generated time machine. She is the mother of today’s British royalty.

Galileo drew the different positions of the four Galilean moons (Ganymede, Io, Callisto, and Europa) while looking through a telescope made of two lenses (compound telescope). Both telescopes and microscopes are fashioned with objective lenses and eyepiece lenses (which can be changed to produce different magnifications).

Still today, lenses allow those with close-up vision to view things at a distance, and those with distance vision to see things close up in the form of hand-held magnifiers and glasses.

Telescopes and Microscopes, using compound lenses, are great ways for parents to get their children interested in the world around them. Pond scum and algae have 24/7 live-streaming content in the form of all sorts of microscopic organisms. There are so many critters to catalog that a person can even discover new animals or plants, and have them named after them, or they can be credited for a discovery, publish their observations of the behavior of organisms that no one else has ever seen.

So, if telescopes work, how do simple, single lenses do the same thing? The eyepiece lens we use in telescopes and microscopes can function just like the lens in our eye can. The lens in our eyes has muscles that help it change its ability to focus images on the back inside of our eyes (the retina and its cone and rod receptors).

Light exists as both electromagnetic waves and focused energy packets. Light is the part of a spectrum of energy packets that we can see. Like lenses, large-dish radio receptors can image the universe using radio waves (some of the lowest energy waves with the longest period and the lowest frequency (so they have less opportunity to be stopped by celestial bodies, or anything else, out there)). Light as opposed to refractor telescopes use a convex mirrors to collect light at their foci (much like a radio receptor disk).An Einstein Ring occurs when distant galaxies/black-holes gravitationally lens a galaxy hidden behind them.

Take a prism and look at sunlight. We see what we call a rainbow, or a rainbow of colors, but our sun (compared to other stars) is a G type star, usually cataloged as yellow (In the Constellation Orion, Betelgeuse is red and Rigel is blue. These colors can be seen with the unaided eye). What can’t be seen is our sun’s wind that usually impacts the Earth, especially when the sun is hot (lots of sunspots). Today the sun is cool (no sunspots and low solar wind). 

Back to the prism. What we can’t see are all the waves that go through the prism–and us. When the sun is cool with no spots, then the solar wind cannot protect us from the strongest and most damaging energy waves–cosmic and gamma rays.

Any energy packet or wave that goes through us is diffracted in its path and so, in a way, we all are lenses for radio and analog TV waves. That’s how old TV sets got snow. The human body acted to disrupt broadcast waves.

April 13, 2018 M: Minimum (No sunspots on the sun and its effect on the weather)

A minimum I’ll discuss here is a minimum in the sunspot cycle. All stars are somewhat variable. And so is our sun. It heats up and cools on an average of every eleven years.

Since astronomy students used to be all male, they categorized stars by how hot they were. To remember the star types they memorized the phrase: Oh, Be A Fine Girl. Kiss Me.  (The star types based on size and temperature: O, B. A, F, G, K, M). Today we’re excited about the smaller stars that are longer lived because they burn at lower temperatures. The sun is a G type star whose lifespan is about 10 billion years. We’ve already said that it’s taken 4.6 billion years (of the sun’s life) for the human race to evolve. So if life only evolves on planets around G type stars like the sun then threats to evolving life (like the variation of output of the sun’s energy) might be extremely important because of the changes that might occur in the second half of the star’s life.

The sun like almost all stars varies in its output and can be categorized as a variable star. When the sun is hot, it boils with rotating storms called sunspots. When it cools down, it is devoid of spots (called the solar minimum). The sunspot cycles average 11 years (every 9 to 12 years the poles switch north to south, south to north). Presently we’re going through a solar minimum (a minimum in the number of sunspots).

Because the sun varies in its heat output, that may create crises for life on it. Though we think we know the sun’s cycle (hot to cold to hot) because we can count the spots on the sun, there is lots we don’t know. About 400 years ago there occurred a Grand Minimum called The Maunder Minimum that lasted from about 1650 to 1715.

Just as an aside: Leibniz, who developed the method of calculus by which physicists and engineers map the behavior of the universe today, lived in Europe during The Maunder Minimum (very few or no spots on the sun while he was alive during his 75 years. The General Energy Equation that I used in my research is based on the symbolism and functioning of his mathematics (calculus). There are data showing that colder climates allow better mental functioning. And so studying the cooler cycle of the sun, might contribute to human evolution in that it might allow humans to first invent clothing and then to more easily develop their technological culture.

During The Maunder Minimum many waterways in Europe froze over, so the time period on Earth was called The Little Ice Age. A real ice age happens every 100,000 years and we’re just coming out of one (Ice Age happened about 20,000 years ago). A real ice age (where the whole Earth falls into a winter-like deep-freeze) seems to only occur when our orbit is eccentric (elliptical) and our axis is precessed away from the sun at a greater distance. A solar minimum during that time might have started the freeze. (Kepler would have said that besides Earth being farther from the sun when its orbit is an ellipse, that the winter part of the orbit would last longer–thus the freeze.)

Today, we’re concerned with the Earth getting hotter and how human industry may be at fault. Today we’re in a solar minimum (no substantial sunspots), but our orbit is circular (eccentricity approximately zero). That means approximately the same amount of heat from the sun (insolation) in the summer and winter. But we are going into a warming trend which usually means a great deal of carbon dioxide is released from the once frozen ocean. That causes the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up.

During a minimum, the solar wind tends to be smaller and so it does not anymore protect us from incoming cosmic rays. It has been theorized that more rain clouds nucleate on these small energetic particles along with the storm tracks sinking lower across the United States and, therefore, more tornadoes, and perhaps other more intense storms (hurricanes?) initiate.

Because of so little is known about sun cycles, NASA is sending probes to the sun to bring back more information about our star and its cycling. Only then will we know for sure if Earth’s human industry is creating all that carbon dioxide and heat, or if it’s just our quirky sun.

With all the talk about ways of sequestering carbon dioxide to keep our climate cool, scientists may have overlooked the biological solution. If over fifty percent of the biomass of life (perhaps the more primitive organisms that inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen) go through very long cycles, then, like they first sequestered carbon dioxide to produce our oxygen atmosphere, they regularly sequester our atmospheric carbon dioxide every hundred thousand years to get us into our ice ages. Couldn’t they react to sunspot maxima, the raising of heat, and the increase in carbon dioxide. Why would one-celled organisms that are in spore form waiting for a time when carbon dioxide is more available in our atmosphere?

April 14, 2018 N: Novas, Supernovas and Nebulas: The Life and Death of Stars (Where do all the radioactive elements come from?) Kepler’s Supernova The crab nebula Type 1 a as measurements

On December 14, 2013, Australian amateur astronomer John Leach was looking through his telescope in the Constellation Centaurus when he saw what he thought was a new star come into being. Actually Nova Centauri 2013 isn’t a star at all.

Unlike our sun, most stars come as binaries, that is, two stars that are rather close together. The stars orbit one another after they are formed, and when they get close enough, one robs the other of its accretion disk material. As the disk material spirals into the other star, it heats up and causes a fusion reaction. At this point the spent hydrogen explodes from the surface of the star it was attracted to and, at that moment, it gives off electromagnetic radiation (some visible, some not so visible: like the gamma rays which are part of the cosmic rays that are thought to nucleate storm clouds during our solar minimum). The visible part of that radiation can sometimes be seen by the naked eye. Our galaxy houses maybe ten novas each year.

Supernovas

In 1604, a star appeared in the sky in the Constellation Ophiuchus. It was brighter than the planet Venus. It was so bright that it could be seen in the daylight. That was the last supernova seen in our galaxy.

When a very large star ends its life, when it’s fuel is spent, then without heat energy, the star can no longer keep gravity from making it collapse upon itself. When that happens, material in a shell of the star explodes out, giving off lots of radiation (including light). Though not continuously visible for years, telescopes reveal the spent and somewhat lit fuel for years, maybe even centuries as what we call nebulas. (A nebula that’s easy to see in binoculars or small telescopes is the Orion Nebula, one of the “stars” that make up Orion’s sword).

The Supernova, as opposed to a nova, produces its own compilation of heavier elements. Because atomic chemists know how different elements in the heat of a supernova (like this one: Kepler’s Supernova) are produced, they know the kind of light given off by the different elements in type 1a supernovae, like this one. Using what these chemist-physicists know, they can calculate distances to other stars and other galaxies, so, sometimes, this type of supernova is thought of a yardstick to the stars, allowing us to map our universe.

Where do all the elements come from?

When nova occur the new fusion reactions in the hydrogen (atomic weight = 1 (one proton, one neutron, one electron)) unlike our sun in its fusion reactions which produces energy for us here on Earth (fusing two hydrogen atoms into a heavier helium atoms) novas produce the heavier lithium atom by fusing a hydrogen and a helium atom.

If our sun produces helium and nova produce lithium, how are the heavier elements we find on Earth created?

Nucleosynthesis is the process by which atom, or atom remnants, are fused to produced heavier elements. Carbon, sometimes known as the backbone of molecular life on our planet, has an atomic weight of four and can only be formed with billion-degree temperatures (our sun at its center is 27 million degrees F, not hot enough to create carbon). So to produce the heavier elements in our planet we needed really big and hot stars much bigger than our sun (Look up at the night sky at Orion. Look below his belt at his right knee. That’s Rigel. It’s a really big blue star, very hot (just like the blue flame of a candle is hotter than the yellow flames). Rigel is a blue supergiant about 100,000 times brighter than the sun. It is only millions of years old and has already burned all its hydrogen fuel and one day may become a supernova as bright as the moon, since it’s only 800 light years away. Before a giant star like Rigel explodes, its fusion heat can produce all the rest of the elements through iron (atomic weight 56) but all the other elements require the star’s death in a supernova.

 

 

Our sun because it burns at a lower temperature has a longer lifespan than a big star like Rigel. The sun is at middle age, but what happens as the sun ages further, especially if it’s not big enough to supernova? In time, it becomes hotter and hotter. The hydrogen all turns into helium and it gets hot enough to fuse helium atoms into carbon. The sun becomes a red giant but is no longer able to hold its outer shell which explodes out as a nebula. Because many more stars are small, and die this way, we are the beneficiaries of the carbon in their nebulae. Galaxies will distribute the elements to eventually orbit another small star to produce another accretion disk and another Earth.

The only unknown, to my mind, is if we need a Jupiter in that system to create the precursors of genetic matter (panspermia) or, if genetic material will naturally evolve on Earth-like planets, then primitive life has to be abundant in our universe (and it mostly occurs on planets in the liquid water zones around smaller stars. Since smaller stars have very long lives, much longer than our suns, life has plenty of time to evolve.

All of that said, we are on this planet, around this sun, so we can expect our sun, though it goes through temperature oscillations through grand minima, to continue to get hotter and hotter through the second half of its life. So eventually our alien cousins will have to figure out ways to get off planet. Since smaller suns like Trappist I can produce many Earths, that may not be as hard as it will be for us humans. But maybe Mars and the Jupiter moons will heat up and their waters will melt, giving us a place to create a new home.

 

April 15, 2018: O: Offset (the first thing that can exist, that has a chance of existence, because it is the first relational boundary)

The definition of offset is the amount a system is out of alignment. To a research scientist the word offset means that a system under study is a disturbed field. So, first, what is it we can learn about systems and fields in relational philosophies, especially those applied to observing the expansion of our universe and the expansion of our perfectly circular, though expanding, droplet?

If the universe were like our perfectly circular droplet then nothing would experience flow, since there are no changes (that’s what coherent suggests in describing a singularity source as coherent). No change in perfectly circular form then no function. So function in our universe is matched with a change in form, and that’s where the mystery of the offset occurs in radial expansion.

Nothing exists if there is no offset, if there is no relationship or change boundary. Our universe was supposed to emerge from a coherent, Big-Bang, singularity source. That singularity that started everything was supposed to be coherent. For a droplet that expands radially the same condition starts the expansion (that is, if there are no vibrations or perturbations that get our droplet out of whack). We might call this perfectly circular expansion outward, a perfectly circular field with all field lines the same distance from their source. But we will discover some eye-opening facts about zero when we come to the letter z. (Z stands for zero, that might exist in our checking account, but in our universe, zero is a limit, that, we hope, does not exist).

So in our universe, not anything can arise from a perfectly circular and stable field. An example of an almost perfectly circular gravitational field might be imagined if we look down at a wine glass filled with water. Someone has drawn lines at equal spacings from the bottom of the glass (above the stem) to its lip. All the lines form perfect circles if seen from above. If a light is shown on the wine glass from above, then the circles around the glass will project onto the surface below the glass as perfectly symmetrical circles. The circles tell us the shape of the field the water in the glass is exposed to. Keeping the edge of the water in the glass as a perfect circle is impossible. In this thought experiment, we realize that all kinds of vibrations in the environment will change the shape of the edge of the water as compared to these perfectly circular lines (the circular edge of the water might slosh about, even to cross one of the drawn circular lines on the glass). In the wine glass, it is the shape of the glass that provided the forces on the water to negate the force of gravity it is exposed to.

In the radial expansion of our droplet from an injection point (an analog to the expansion of the universe), the injection point forms the center of the field (like the stem of the glass). When all the field lines are equal distance from the injection-point source then we say there is balance in the field, but how can our expanding droplet or universe go unstable? It goes unstable when the center of gravity/injection (c.g.) or its centroid is no longer at the injection point singularity. How does this happen?

With the wine glass, that, as OO7 might say, “Needs to be shaken. Not stirred.” When the field in the glass is disturbed by a force then the water sloshes about across the field lines. The same thing happens with the universe or our expanding droplet. But the first thing that perturbs it, the first change, becomes the first relationship boundary. But (as we look at it) its form does not change—at least from the perspective of someone looking from above.

Our unperturbed droplet as it expands from a point follows perfectly circular concentric circles as it travels outward. So how can we tell if it’s perturbed or if its boundary is changing shape (because we need to see a change of shape for us to believe some function has occured over a first relational boundary).

Instead of the slope of the wine glass forcing the shape of water poured into it, it is the surface tension on the outer boundary of the expanding droplet that controls its shape into a perfect circle.

But as I look down at the analog of our universe, this expanding droplet, how do I know it has begun to change shape and go unstable. You might say that when the shape of its boundary begins to buckle and change from a perfect circle, but you’d be wrong. Water has such a large surface tension that it prevents a change in curvature. A perfectly circular expanding droplet, as seen from above, looks like an unperturbed field (of constant curvature). But wait! That’s our human-centered/observer-centered view of what looks to us like a perfectly circular expanding droplet. But if we are good scientists, it isn’t for us to determine whether the droplet is unperturbed, it is for the droplet to determine that.

Remember, it is the droplet that sees any perturbations from it’s reference point (its injection point). And the OFFSET in the experiment is the distance of the boundary of the droplet from this injection point. In the videotape of this experiment, when the boundary goes unstable, because of how powerful the surface/interfacial tension is there, the droplet keeps its circular shape, but to the droplet, its own boundary looks unstable (one sine wave superimposed on the boundary’s field line).

Besides the offset mode of expansion looking like a perfect circle, it can fool a researcher into thinking the unstable or buckling phase has not yet occured, but that would be wrong. To the droplet itself, it has already gone unstable as it creates what looks like a perfectly circular expanding field that is offset from its original injection hole.

Something else that is most profound (if you’ve managed to follow me this far) is that if a droplet like a primitive cell only offsets then even though it looks perfectly circular, it experiences a crest and a trough around its boundary. If the offset mode of the droplet does not unstabilize or buckle or change its shape, then as it expands, the flow patterns inside the droplet will change and the trough will grow perfectly through the droplet’s center. There doesn’t need to be too much expansion or heat for this to happen, just an ingrown trough that forces the inner fluids to flow in such a way as to stabilize the trough membrane tunneling through the droplet. This is how I believe the first cell divided perfectly in half. The water-based droplet coated in an oil-based fluid (when the viscosities of the inner and outer fluids are almost identical) may make this situation of the first mitosis of a drop quite easy to occur and probably existing nearly everywhere in our universe (where it is ideal for water to exist as a fluid).

So, an offset is how a droplet’s perfectly circular field first becomes unstable—obvious to the droplet, but not so to its human observer.

Holdovers: Oscillations in Space and Time: (Primitive Memory) A Field says something about how a specific force acts or reacts in space. When something perturbs space with a even a little then the relationship is between the source field and the opposing field/the change filed. What we see. What we can’t see.

April 16, 2018 P: Perspective (The unique ways we look at things–no matter “who” we are).

On this website we discuss topics, hopefully to show that the physical universe is subjective, a product of perspectives of all systems, determined by these relationship boundaries of change.

A good definition of perspective is point of view. If our three dimensional universe in space were made up of a network or mesh of points/locations, then whatever was happening at each location would have a different perspective on the universe, depending on the change relationships that formed its unique position.

In art, perspective is easy to understand. An architect that draws long hallways shows the hallway getting smaller and smaller in width and the lines delineating the hallway coming closer. That’s how we see things when we look out over large expanses, even though the lines aren’t always there. (Does the hallway really get smaller? For us it does, but for the hallway at that location, it doesn’t.)

Lenses work to look at places far away, because they collect more light from our target and focus it into our eyes so we can see more detail. The lenses, along with our normal process of seeing things, form our perspective on that thing. (Without a lens, we look up at the moon and see the maria, but with a telescope or binoculars, we look up at the moon and see the crater Tycho and all its streams of debris radiating from its rim to the moon’s rim.)

A relationship boundary or change boundary delineates a difference in something in our universe. With some change, then, a kind of relationship boundary can be formed between two systems. Two systems cannot form unless there is a change between them. Each system has a different view of the other ( a curved meniscus in a straw separates the fluid in the straw from the air in the straw. The fluid sees the meniscus as concave upwards (curving away from it) and the air sees the meniscus as concave downwards (curving toward it).) The meniscus boundary between fluid and air does not change from our perspective, but it does change depending on whether you’re looking from the fluid or the air.

The energy leaking into and expanding our universe was said first to be coherent (no changes), but as we’ve suggested here, nothing exists without some sort of change. So, how can an explosion of energy, theorized to start our universe, not have change, when to exist there must be a change that brings with it boundaries and across them, perspectives? The energy leaking into and expanding our universe, since at first the flow rate of that energy was very great, brought along with it a large energy error. So statistically there were great potentials in that assumed coherent leakage that created our universe in a Big Bang that created the first potential universe. The first change/relationship boundary did not have the perspective of time, because the universe at first did not 100% exist for any appreciable amount of time (not for the relationship boundary or the perspectives across it).

As relationship boundaries perfused our expanding universe, then they became longer-lived, had a greater chance to produce more complex and stable longer-lived relationship boundaries (which later we called systems or objects so we could study them).

 Incoming perspectives or potentials for simple systems early on in our universe (before atoms) were formed and lwere much fewer than those the complex system of our minds experience (see information on cyclotrons that study these particles/early-relationship-boundaries). Because all the superimposed relationship boundaries (changes) produce multiple perspectives, our universe exists only subjectively, depending on “who” is looking

April 17, 2018 Q: Quantum

The word QUANTUM has an interesting history and comes from the same root as the word QUANTITY. In The Experiment, a quantum is the smallest unit that makes up some distribution. In a self-ordering phenomena like our expanding droplet, a quanta says something about the frequency of the oscillation of the droplet and the resulting number of wave crests or fingers that stabilize on its boundary.

What most physicists mean when they speak of quantum theory is the way it is theorized that, for example, atoms end up with a certain discrete quantity of protons and electrons (their atomic number). The expanding droplet experiment at a slow flow rate, straight line expansion (conduction) and rotation (convection) is given by the TGEEE, an expanding system can end with a discrete number of boundary units.

It is said the universe has no form until we collapse it (Gary Zukav in The Dancing Wu Li Masters). Like David Bohm believed (Wholeness and the Implicate Order), all things exist as potential until observed explicitly through a specific perspective until we explain it in our perspective with thoughts in words or numbers, for example.

How do we collapse things into what we think they are (What Is (to us))? That all depends on perspective.

The two major perspectives we can observe are space and time, or form and function (in time), or potential and flow (in time). The Uncertainty Principle says that when we’re looking from one perspective we can’t see anything from the other perspective (position is observed from one pov, but velocity needs to be observed from two or more povs).

So when we see an offset expanding droplet from our point of view it looks like a circular boundary just like it did when it began expanding, But when a fluid expands, how it expands depends on what its expanding into (how it sees a push back on itself from other fluid in its environment, another fluid that it wants to penetrate.

The expanding universe, an expanding droplet, and an accretion disc (whether stable or unstable) periodically move and oscillate about their original centers. Why do they do that? Why don’t they vibrate like a raindrop on a car window? The drop of rain, because of the surface tension in the water seems to maintain a stable, half circular shape. Really, all fluid droplets are always vibrating, because of random perturbations they see, because of error existing everywhere.

As the droplet oscillates in one direction, it appears to us to be an offset (still a perfect circle) but an offset is an illustration of both a particle (with position) and a sine wave (illustrating change in position). Those who see a perfect circle when observing a droplet in offset mode 1 are viewing from a human-centered perspective.  But the droplet reacts to the fact that it’s source or centroid is no longer at its center. Eventually with each oscillation to the side, more sine waves (troughs and crests) are incident on its boundary until the expanding droplet boundary reaches a stable number of wave crests and fingers that are symmetric about its entire boundary.

An example of a seven-crested system (or seven-trough system) is, Trappist I, the small sun 40 light years away from us that had an accretion disk that spawned seven approximately equal-sized Earth-sized planets. The experiment that spawned seven, equally spaced troughs around its boundary and Trappist I’s solar system are examples of how a system can form a discrete number of units or quanta.

April 18, 2018 R: Relational Philosophy (Everything is subjective. It just depends on “who” is relating with “whom”!)

Wikipedia: “In physics and philosophy, a relational theory is a framework to understand reality or a physical system in such a way that the positions and other properties of objects are only meaningful relative to other objects.” 

I think if I hadn’t had a course in thermodynamics (thermo) as a grad student at the University of Delaware, I would never have come to the conclusion that the perspectives of systems across relationship boundaries are more important than I ever knew. With all of the animosity in the world today, based on differing POVs (points of view), I wish there were a course in elementary school, incorporating thermo, on how to get along.

In THE EXPERIMENT, what is on the inside (that’s being injected) is forcing its way into the outside fluid. If the outside fluid is more viscous (usually means more dense), then it will be harder for the inviscid fluid (water-based) to push the viscous (syrupy-one/oil-based) outward. The relationship boundary between the two fluids will change its shape or buckle (at least, as we learned, after the first OFFSET perturbing-sine-wave impinges on the boundary).

When I taught materials science to college students in Utah, I noticed at the bottom of the page that introduced the topic: Atomic Chemistry and The Periodic Table of Elements, that in small letters, it said, “The information about elemental atoms and their valences only work when one atom is in relationship to another.” That means an atom has no meaning or discrete existence unless it relates to something else (like another atom). That tiny disclaimer at the bottom of the page (in addition to my thermo class) probably got me to thinking about how all the things/objects/systems we describe only come about through their own subjectivity, and only certain realms of questions can be answered scientifically and objectively. So how do we answer all the rest. If the scientific view is all wrong for certain questions about the physical universe, then how might we change our perspective to solve all the others?

Here at The Union of Opposites website, I attempt to apply what I preach. I wanted to look through different eyes (a different perspective) than a scientist does. I joined a group of scientifically minded theosophists and tried to get my head around what they espoused. Since Wikipedia’s definition above may not help those not familiar with the philosophy of theosophy, I’ll attempt to compare it with the philosophy of science.

In science we analyze the universe based on the things in it. We describe those things that exist (at least for a while) and name and categorize them. We also describe their behavior. The smaller the object/particle that we examine, for example, in a cyclotron, the shorter lived it seems to be (the harder it is to locate).

FUNCTION BEFORE FORM

So to compare the scientific way of thinking with the theosophical way of thinking, all we need to do is look at our thoughts. Medical scientists run CAT Scans to observe how the brain thinks, They believe that the neural tissue creates a human’s thought. However, theosophists believe that the function, the thought, comes before the object or thing, generates it. Who’s right scientific perspectives or theosophical perspectives?

I asked myself, How is this possible? I had always thought the other way, that objects had to be a form, before they could function. But if we think of the human mind (or mind in general) we realize that both perspectives are true. The movie, THE MATRIX, was profound in its idea that our minds produce for us a kind of virtual reality. That movie and the thinking today is that we need to create virtual reality games using programming we impose on that game, a technique willfully entered into by a player. But if all of our reality is really virtual, then what we think of as reality is only a projection from our minds, our thoughts. So, how can we ever repeat an experiment and get similar results or agreements?

Now, don’t be afraid to read what I’m going to say about the virtual reality of the mind. It took me some time to understand theosophy, what it means to say the thought creates the object’s existence, in fact, that thought creates the existence of the entire universe.

This has everything to do with understanding perspective. The thought about something is really the relationship we have with it, that turns out to be our perspective on it. In science the perspective is easy to trace (though some have missed it). It’s the experimental setup (the equipment, but also the observer). In theosophical thought, the mind might be all virtual. For example: We look up at clouds and say they look like some animal, but the clouds don’t care what we think, they’ll rain on us if they must. Another example: We could watch a meteor heading for the Earth, but no matter how hard we wish it to not hit the Earth, it doesn’t care. It might create a tsunami that wipes out life along the shore.

One might ask, where is god in all of this? I do have a posting of my beliefs, but that’s just what they are–beliefs. My mind does not have the wisdom to know what is in the mind of a god. I can, as any of us can, just speculate about our situation here on Earth. So, now, I’ll explain how function can create form, how thought can create our universe.

From the theosophical perspective, everything is virtual and a projection of our minds (remember this is a POV that might be thought of as complementary to a scientific way of thinking (form creates function)). This perspective may too have its drawbacks, questions that can only be answered from a scientific viewpoint (just as science has its drawbacks when it comes to the observer and the choice to make the existence of anything discrete for them).

This is how I see an object becoming virtually into existence through the mind:

Babies look into their mother’s faces. At first, all is static. There may be shapes and colors, but the shapes and colors have no meaning. It is only, as the child grows and learns, that things they “see,” and think about, have properties and meanings. All the ways the child “sees” things is somehow hardwired into their brains. Now I’m an adult and what I “see” is a virtual world (programmed with meaning and colors and shapes) into my brain by interacting with my mother, my family and the rest of my society. The color blue to you, might not be a the color blue for me, but as we grow up and are programmed by other humans, we learn to agree that we all see things almost in the same way. But do we? I don’t know, but agreement has something to do with how we “see” things in our world.

It has always bothered me that when we look at our surroundings, most of the things we see don’t surprise us. They don’t change. And many people who tripped on acid say that that’s when everything seems to morph. Or is it, with very few visual or auditory clues, our brains recreate what’s out there with very little help from the present (potential present data)?

If what we “see” is a virtual construct of reality, then how do our minds keep everything predictable and stable when the universe we’re embedded in might be in flux? With an intermediary relationship boundary (our brains) protecting us from the full truth of what’s out there (What Is Behind What Is: we’ll get to this soon), it might be easier to understand how lots more is happening out there, when we understand how our brains, our relationship boundaries, are processing the information about our universe(s).

Do our minds create entropy because in the process of information transfer it makes sense? And how about continuity? Entropy would not make sense unless the brain takes in random information (information that it thinks is out of order) and puts it into a continuous sequence of events. In this way, on a complex part of the universal boundary, like the brain, the universe expands inward and there is a gap, a duration in time, before any response is available. In this way, as opposed to scientific thinking, thought creates the universe, rather than the universe, as an expanding and forming boundary, creates a brain full of thoughts. Both way of looking have potential.

 April 19, 2018 S: Space (What is it, and how does it come about?)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

“Space, the final frontier…” We’re all familiar with the trekky phrase. We all seem to think we know that space has nothing, is empty, for the most part. It ain’t so. Well, it might be so, if all we do is look at what we think is density, at least, what the universe, or parts of it, “thinks” is density.

To understand more about space, let’s think about how the universe was born. How it got its space, its room for other things to happen. We believe a great deal of potential energy leaked through somewhere. Maybe the leak was from space in another universe that might have started as a very low probability zero point energy. Particle physicists describe zero point energy as a zero ground state found in what we call space.

I like to think about our universe as being made up of localities and nonlocalities. Localities are any part/system/field in space that can be modeled with a cg (center of gravity) whose location depends on the distribution of matter around it. Some parts of space, energy packets (like the electromagnetic wave particles, and subatomic particles) cannot be located, because they are so small and move so fast that their cgs, if they have them, can only exist in a given location if seen through an adequate experimental setup (when we take a picture of them from one datapoint, instantaneous in time).

[And then there are systems we can study that fall between local and nonlocal. Maybe more complex universal boundaries like us.]

Back to space. Okay, so, instead of these nonlocal particle/waves in space quickly coming in and out of probable existence, we’ve got an improbable zero point energy packet blazing through a former universe at a point. In three-dimensional space, a point has no length, area, or volume. So if all that energy, that started our universe in a big bang, expanded outward, how did it do that if there was no space to move into? Where did all the space come from?

When astronomers look out into space they find that spectral lines (rainbows) of stars that they know become redder and redder the farther away they are. Christian Doppler  (1842) suggested that his effect (The Doppler Effect that had been applied to sound (the sound waves of a train whistle become longer and the sound lower as they move away from us) could be applied to the reason stars that are farther away appear redder.

Like the train, are the stars moving away from us? And, if so, why is this happening.

Now, I’m going to say something most of you may think has an obvious answer. How does space come about? We know that planets have cgs, so they are localities. We know that very small particle/wave energy packets exhibit nonlocal behavior. We know when something moves, it needs space to move into. Most will point out the obviousness that all these energy distributions. As an outgrowth from my thinking about THE EXPERIENT I’m not so sure that the obvious answer is the only one.

If the universe is like the boundary in our expanding droplet, then the largest most massive systems add the least boundary, and the smaller wave/particle masses have the largest boundaries. Why is that? Because the surface/volume ratio is much larger the smaller the particles. So if larger masses are broken down into smaller ones, the boundary of the universe automatically increases in length (makes more space).

We can create space then, maybe, when things break apart. But things that break apart need additional space for the crack to form.

Back to the Red Shift in space. It means that the universe is expanding and as we guessed, its expands more around smaller particles than larger one. That makes sense because we know that the larger a mass, the greater the gravitational field around its cg, and the harder it is to move (the more inertia it has).

In our experiment, expansion causes the crests to flatten. Any location along a flat crest can initiate another, or many, wave trough. Random perturbations there are small, so curvature is small and resulting small masses abound. The original troughs are of high curvature, meaning massive, and so the greatly inertia there resists an outward flow and change. It is easy to see why such a high curvature trough/mass resists the outward flow of space (notice we haven’t got to what causes the production of space, but only are examining what we know from low energy exchanges). Our experiment suggests other ways, other perspectives, on this  resistance to the outward flow of energy. For example, what if, like water in a stream taking the path of least resistance around a rock, it is easier for the flow of energy to go around a highly curved obstacle more than moving it forward (especially if the trough-curvature/space-curvature is very tight). Or could it be that space is created for smaller particles which allows the motion and the flow bypasses the masses, extending the crests?

When we get to the Z term, ZERO, we will get into how we think the universe is growing in such a way as to produce the Red Shift in starlight.

When we get past Z, we will talk about ∏ and then, go back to discussing how the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) and the Theory of Everything (TOE) may not exist for solely massive objects, based on the difference of how information is transferred (shape is changed) in localities (local cg/gravitational fields/highly curved troughs) vs nonlocalities (small energy packets at light velocities on flattened crest where curvature approaches zero).

Holdover:Self-awareness and Consciousness; Self-organization (The bottom up way our universe organizes itself); stability;

Additional holdover: SHEDDING LIGHT ON CLASSICAL DEFINITIONS [THE PAPER (Mattski’s Infinite Brain outside of accepted boundary of individual (skin)]

[The GUT ( Grand Unification Theory: unifying all the fundamental forces ) suggests and requires that there are eleven dimensions (forces from those dimensions) beyond our known four to make our universe behave the way it does.] Low energy experiments like the one Dr. Advani and I ran at University of Delaware, may something about four dimensional space-time, but when physicist create conditions as they may have occurred at the beginning of our universe (in cyclotrons) the particles and paths they reveal

Quantum theory about counting. Would be easy if we can just count in including gravitation, called the quantum theory of gravity.

String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity

Quantum Information Theory

Holdovers: Self -organized awareness/Consciousness/ how developes

April 20, 2018 T: Tensile Fields (Since surface tension is mathematically like gravitational tension, what can we learn from that analog?)

A field is a model of our universe (or parts thereof) that tells us something about how energy/matter is distributed in a regular pattern. It tells us something about how equilibrium is maintained in any position (for example: gravitational field lines equidistant from the Earth’s surface tell us something about the speed required to maintain an orbit at any distance from the Earth.)

Put a rubber band between two fingers. Now stretch your fingers apart. Notice there is tension in the rubber band. Stress flows through the rubber between the two fingers. We call the pull on each bit of rubber and the force per length of the rubber, TENSION.  The force of the tension between the two fingers can be found by fixing one finger to a given location and pulling outward with the other finger. This is a simple example of a tensile field. Notice that the rubber at the fixed end pulls the rubber towards itself, as does the force of gravity acting from a mass.

In the same way, in our experiment, the crest of a sine wave at the relationship boundary (interface) is forced outward, and it pulls against the sluggist trough. As this happens the curvature of the trough tightens (increases (1/radius-of-trough)) while the expanded crest goes to near zero curvature. As we stated before, seeking the least resistance, the fluid flow from the source does not expand the trough radially outward like it does the crest. The trough, that becomes tightly curved, looks as if it resists the outward flow (and so like the fixed finger in the rubber band, it doesn’t move much). But the crest boundary continues to pull against the trough creating a high tension field whose forces can be predicted using a formula almost the same as that of gravitation (Newton’s Gravitational Equation).

A COMPARISON OF NEWTON’S GRAVITATIONAL EQUATION and THE INTERFACIAL TENSION EQUATION (as they apply in normal space-time):

In the gravitational equation, forces are equal to mass 1 times mass 2, all divided by the distance (between the two masses) squared.

In the interfacial equation, tension is equal to surface tension (in air) of fluid 1 times surface tension (in air) of fluid 2, all divided by the distance (the force due to the tension on the boundary is related to the distance squared (as is the gravitational equation).

Along objects of very small dimensions surface tension balances out or exceeds gravitation (as in our experiment. The thickness of our expanding droplet is 1 mm, therefore the force of gravity over that height is negligible.)

As the troughs narrow on the relationship boundary, their curvature increases (the more curvature the greater the forces resisting information transfer (the pressure across the relationship boundary (F/area) are the curvature times the interfacial tension). But at the crest where the curvature is near zero, random perturbations transfer energy and information across the interface in the form of random perturbations (very small waves that fit on the remaining (nearly flat) interface. With a lowering curvature, the interface is open to information and energy transfer. Eventually, the surface tension goes almost to zero (meaning the two fluids that meet at the boundary can mix) and with a near zero curvature, forces are not enough to prevent molecular diffusion. This may be an analog of what happens in the quantum-controlled behavior of tiny particles in outer space (between large masses).

The differing boundaries at the troughs and crests suggest different characteristics and behaviors for these regions of our expanding droplet’s relationship boundary and out in space. So, not much hope can be held out for TOEs (theories of everything.)

 April 21, 2018 U: Uncertainty (What it can mean in everyday life).

What is really meant by Uncertainty with a capital U? Uncertainty, aka Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, was suggested in order to understand the quantum nature or “reality” of the behaviors of subatomic particles.

Here we’re going to show you how Uncertainty doesn’t just apply to the subatomic  world, but our world as well, because it all has to do with perspective. We said before there are times when scientists design an experimental setup, they mistakenly think they can merge runs at different perspectives, call them controlled, and miss the point entirely. Uncertainty is all about perspective. When we observe from one point of view, that doesn’t mean we can always observe the same thing from another point of view and combine results.

POV 1: If we approach a house from above we may take an image of a tile roof.

POV 2: If we approach a house from the front, we see a door and two windows.

So, is a roof a house? So, is a front door a house? Can we tell everything about the house by just looking from above or in front? The answer is no. The roof and front door are only aspects of a house (they lead to the understanding of what a house might be. They are virtual condensations of the meaning of the house from different perspectives, but they are not the real house (we may never know what that is).

Uncertainty says if we look from above, we can’t see anything out front. If we look out front, we can’t see anything from above. This is a way to see how perspective can both help us know the aspects of things, and this is a way that trips us up experimentally, because if we don’t note the unique setup and view of our experiment, we really don’t know what aspects we’re observing (The branch of science called thermodynamics is excellent in its inventory of all possible changes in perspective across boundaries).

POV 1: a small packet of energy when it goes through a slit toward a screen, will hit the screen at a point. We look at that lighted image (at a point) and say, that’s a particle.

POV 2: a small packet of energy when it goes through two slits (a given small distance apart) will hit the screen at many points in a wave or interference pattern.

The above example is from a double slit experiment which has two experimental setups. Can we combine results and say there are two aspects of an energy packet? You bet we can. However, we cannot be certain that what we saw from one perspective (an explicit virtuality) was the exact same thing that we saw at another (implicit reality).

Classic Uncertainty says that you can know the position (particle image) of anything (energy packet) but if you know the location or position, you cannot know the velocity, or anything having to do with the energy packet in time.

In the Double Slit Experiment, researchers tried to combine both position and velocity from the two perspectives. When they did, they saw that the particles seemed to change their positions faster than light. An easy mistake to make if one does not thoroughly understand the nature of perspective. It is the perspective that can change (that they made to change in their experiment) faster than light, not the energy packet whose speed is limited by the speed of light as all small energy packets are in our universe (in normal space-time).

Evidence of Uncertainty can exist in many observations. So what does Uncertainty mean and what is the evidence for this meaning?

In the double slit experiment when we look from the perspective of one datapoint (one slit), we know location, but two or more slits give us the aspect of time (velocity or momentum). We cannot see both, meaning we cannot attribute both to the same energy packet, only to all energy packets in general.

An example of the difference between observing for location and speed can be seen when observing a train. When we look from one datapoint (the train at a stations from the center of the tracks) then we see its position on the tracks. But when we want to see its velocity, that takes time, and that takes more than one datapoint. And what perspective must we take to see the train move? The best way to view the speed of the train is to look perpendicular to the tracks.

So we see that two or more data points must allows us to see a movement of the train in time (speed), but when we measure the speed, we don’t know the train’s instantaneous position (the train doesn’t have a position, only velocity from that perpendicular perspective).

In The General Energy Equation used by scientists and physicists (and in our fluids experiment), solutions are found by inserting complex numbers into the equation. A complex number gives what is called a REAL component and an IMAGINARY one. The components represent aspects that cannot both be applied simultaneously to any aspect other than itself.

For fluids we can find the fluid’s energy potential (the REAL component) and its flux or flow (its kinetic energy in time, the IMAGINARY component). But those two aspects though they apply to fluid behavior, they do not apply to the same molecule or grouping of molecules, because of Uncertainty you can’t look at a position of a system of particles and the motion of that system of particles at the same time.) And now you know how Uncertainty limits what you can know about something through perspective (the experimental setup of your observation).

And the two different perspectives can be from two different systems. Notice in our experiment with the offset mode of the expanding droplet, when it still looks like a circle to us humans (System Perspective 1), it looks like a sine wave as seen with reference to the droplet’s center (System Perspective 2). So, is the radius constant for the circular droplet, or is it not? It’s one or the other, depending on perspective. To say anything about the droplet’s change in shape, we need to observe what the droplet, its boundary, might see, and not what we see, or we will miss the moment the droplet’s boundary goes unstable.

There is a solution to the expanding droplet saying it goes unstable (the offset growth begins at a point in time related to it viscosity (the inverse of the Atwood Ratio (viscosity contrast over the boundary in time). But for higher flow rates and viscosity contrasts (greater than in our experiment: air into water/see THE EXPERIMENT page for videos of high flow rates), the initiation of the growth of the first offset trough differed from the initiation point of instability of the droplet (when fingers/crests began to grow) by a certain amount.

The time until an expanding droplet goes wonky (the waves on its surface begin to grow) would be a great problem to research. Why is that? Because equations for interfacial tension are almost identical to equations for gravitational attraction between two bodies in normal space. Gravitational attraction is different at higher energy levels (Mercury is seen to be at a different distance from the sun than predicted: called General Relativity) just like the first trough in the unstable expanding droplet at high energies/flows  is thought to initiate at a different position than predicted for normal space. Could the different initiation of the droplets instability be modeled by the Lorentz Transformation just like Newton’s Gravitational Equation can, or did the researchers miss that the offset mode, that looks like a perfect circle is really offset from its center or injection point (and the beginning of its growth is the beginning of instability)?

April 22, 2018 V: Voyager Satellite (What it tells us about the shape of space).

The reason I chose to look at the Voyager spacecraft has, of course, something to do with THE EXPERIMENT; how this analog might help to predict the meaning of anomalous data collected and transmitted from Voyager I, and what it says about interstellar space.

From Wikipedia (Voyager): After completing its primary mission with the flyby of Saturn on November 12, 1980, Voyager 1 became the third of five artificial objects to achieve the escape velocity that will allow them to leave the Solar System. On August 25, 2012, Voyager 1 became the first spacecraft to cross the heliopause and enter the interstellar medium.

From NASA (Voyager) “The Voyager spacecraft were built by JPL, which continues to operate both. JPL is a division of Caltech in Pasadena. The Voyager missions are a part of the NASA Heliophysics System Observatory, sponsored by the Heliophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate in Washington.”

Passed the heliopause, the boundary between our solar system and outer space, there are electromagnetic particle/waves/energy-packets that are products of supernovas and other extreme events in the rest of our galaxy. Within our solar system, these cosmic rays are generally pushed aside by the solar wind coming from our star. Right now, we’re in a solar minimum (where the sun is cooler than usual (has few sunspots and a lower than normal solar wind).

The concern I have is: what if the shape of our solar system is similar to the offset mode that evolves into a single massive-body/trough, then how does the concave downward (ccdown) relationship boundary (as opposed to the concave upward (ccup) boundary at the trough/mass) behave? We saw that this might model the accelerated stars at the edge of galaxies. Can  it explain anomalies at the edge or just beyond the edge of our solar system? Many times the astrophysical and cosmological communities suggest dark energy or dark matter as being the culprit. What if only the absolute curvature (ccup or ccdown) accounts for these phenomena.

The nature of spatial curvature, extension, and acceleration of objects (in the relational boundary of the universe):

If, as a ship orbiting the sun needs to put more energy into its system (in accelerating) in order to reach orbits farther away from the Sun or Earth, then why are orbital velocities of the planets move slower, suggesting a reduction in velocity, as we move outward?

Just because the gravitational attraction of the sun is reduced (in Newton’s Gravitational Equation/Forces) the farther the ship moves outward, out from the sun (maybe even out of our solar system the required energy to do all that increases). A rocket ship must accelerate (reach higher velocities) in order to surmount the energy needed to move away from the sun. To find out how much energy is required to reach orbits farther and farther out, we need to find the areas that orbit sweeps out under the orbital curve. That required energy increases as we attempt to escape the sun’s gravitational influence.

The graphs above for red and green show the reduction in orbital speed is related to the increase in orbital radius from the sun (because gravitational forces are weaker the larger the radial distance from the sun). So the orbital velocity for each planet gets slower the farther out it orbits. However, to get your rocket ship farther out, farther away for the sun, you need to expend more energy. That’s what the turquoise and blue lines represent. The larger the orbital radius, the more energy must be put into the system (energy expended from the rear end of the rocket). That energy was calculated by assuming perfectly circular orbits of the planets (eccentricity = 1) and the area carved out by the curve (see Kepler).

How does the relational boundary of the universe behave like a rubber band in gravitational tension (similar to the interfacial tension in our expanding droplet experiment)?

Why do rocket blasts get us from the Earth to farther out in the solar system? How does action/reaction work (Newton’s Third Law of Motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)? How can we run our own test on this principle? You might say, launch a small rocket, but to understand how the universe makes this work think about this:

You’re on the edge of a pool and next to you in the water, touching the side, is a wooden raft. You decide to walk onto the raft and move to the far edge of the raft. What happens to the position of the raft?

Think of yourself as a moving mass, like the ignited gases out the back end of the rocket. Before you take a step onto the raft, the center of gravity of the raft is in its center. But the weight distribution of the raft changes when you step onto it. The new center of gravity of the system moves to the left because of your added weight. What happens to the raft (that we assume is floating frictionless on the water)?

The raft and human combo wants to move so that the new cg returns to where it was before you stepped onto the raft. Since the new cg of the combined system moves to the left, the raft, in order to attain its original cg, moves to the right, away from the edge of the pool. Be careful or you’ll fall in!

What if you moved to the halfway point? The cg of the system combo is moving to the right, so the raft moves back to the edge of the pool.

Now what happens if you walk to the far edge of the raft? The cg has moved to the right again, and so, the raft will hug the edge of the pool even harder, but won’t be able to move.

But what happens if you’re standing at the center of your raft out in the middle of the pool? Then you walk away from the edge? The cg moves to the right, and the raft combo  moves to the left. You’d propel your raft toward the edge.

In the same way, a rocket on takeoff loses weight under itself when it expels its ignited gases (part of the original system). That means the cg is moved downward, as if the rocket is embedded in an elastic band, the cg of the rocket (with fuel loss) is drawn back to its original cg, upward.

This is how to imagine for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Space kind of acts as if it’s an elastic band. When it loses energy, it attempts to maintain its cg by moving in the opposite direction. When you pull on a rubber band, it pulls back on your finger in the opposite direction.

How much energy must have gone into Voyager I over its forty years? Just take its radius from the sun and calculate the area it has swept out until it reached the heliopause. Then subtract away the area swept out by the Earth (since we launched the satellite/probe from the Earth). Now, can you calculate how much energy is required to get us to the nearest star? Would that be possible with the technology we have today?

There is an unexplained acceleration of the measurement of the velocities of spacecraft (like Voyager) on the outskirts of the planets, the sun, and stars at the outer rim of galaxies. If the original expansion of the universe was very large, then the offset, the first mode of instability of the universe, may look like our “dividing” droplet. 

In this expanding droplet experiment, the walls of the trough of the first perturbing sine wave curve is concave downward against the outward expansion. This is similar to the characteristic of interfacial tension (except with gravitational tension of universal space taking its place). The first mode of our universe (its shape and curvature) might have benefited from this type of expansive flow.

Anomaly orbiting Earth 

Galactic Rotation Anomaly

Voyager’s Live Mission Status Pager from NASA (JPL: Jet Propulsion Lab)

Holdovers: Vacuum (what is the character of outer space?); VISCOSITY, density, and instability in in universal expansion.

April 23, 2018 W: What Is vs What Is Behind What Is (Another look at reality)

In Commentaries on Living, philosopher/psychologist Krishnamurti speaks about the WHAT IS.

WHAT IS is mostly what we know about our world. Actually, it is everything we know about our world (in word, in mathematics, in image, in all explicit sensation).

Something else we need to discuss here is the difference between what we think of as real and what we think of as virtual. Anything that is explained in any of the above explicit languages or techniques is not real, it is virtual (meaning WHAT IS is not WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS). The only real is WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS (which is impossible to describe without losing one or many aspects of it).

There is a spectrum of existence from What Is Potential (Real Reality: WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS) and What Is Explained (Virtual Reality: WHAT IS).

What do we mean that a potential exists: We roll a bowling ball down an incline. Before we let go, we say it has potential energy.  And after we let it go, we say it has kinetic energy (energy of movement). Sometimes we look at something (the bowling ball before we let it go) and we can’t see its potential to roll down the incline, or, possibly, to do damage (from the force of its future impact). Before an earthquake hits or a hurricane or tornado hits, we don’t know what kind of damage it will do, but it exists in our world of potential. Is the trauma of such events real? It is, and it isn’t. Nothing we can think of explicitly is real. Why?

When a child is born without sight, their visual cortex of potentially networked nerve cells can not develop to learn how to analyze shapes as it grows during the child’s life. Another child who can see for their first few years and then loses their eyesight can regain it if their vision is corrected. So, what the world looks like out there is how our society helps the neurons in our baby’s brain to interconnect to create virtual signal/languages in our virtual world of meaning.

So, if we live in a virtual world of our own description that looks nothing like WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS (the world, the universe, behind what we actually see) then what is the true reality? For example: nerve cells in our brain, that get together to give meaning to everything we see, look nothing like us, look nothing like a brain, look nothing like what they see. Networked nerve tissue, like any other method of detection have a form and that form has a function. The shape of the nerve and the nervous tissue of the brain, for example, experiences a flow of some form of energy (electro-chemical?) across its relationship boundary (perhaps an advanced segment of the universal crest wave). Whether it’s form or function, it feels comfortable for us humans to name it. As soon as we name it, then it only exists, in memory and our thoughts, that is, as a virtual construct/language that looks nothing like itself.

So, you might say, does this virtual reality of description, that is all we have training for (from birth) or access to, does it represent a reality? It depends on how close we are to the beginning of our universe (The Big Bang singularity source).

When the universe first exploded out of maybe a zero point energy location in perhaps the outer space of another universe … See what I’m doing? I’m using my language to create a story, or speculation, or model, about my observation of WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS. The story I’m telling on this website (The Union of Opposites) is my speculation about my universe with the help of many others that came before me. The name of my speculative search is called my personal cosmology.

So can I ever know for sure WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS? Can I use what I know about WHAT IS to be 100% sure about WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS?

NO

So is there no reality? Well, I said before that the real and the virtual were on opposite ends of a spectrum of experiences. And here’s my story about how I think the real and the virtual evolve:

Before our universe exploded out of a location (singularity source), it did not exist. Existence requires some observation and observation requires a relationship boundary (a change in universal shape and function). But we’re told that the first energy out of the singularity source was coherent, meaning that there was no change inside it, therefore no relationship boundary of any kind.

So that first relationship boundary (maybe dividing a difference in temperature, maybe the energy of motion of the smallest of energy packets, or an energy that had not yet coalesced into packets) was the most real thing, especially since there was, perhaps, no self-awareness of the event, or primitive language to describe it. What is needed to become aware of something is a complication of the relationship boundary when its complexity creates new and robust languages to describe itself (a lag in the asking and answering of a question)..

John Archibald Wheeler, a physicist, who I was privileged enough to meet at Georgia Tech in the eighties believed in a participatory universe (the universe becoming aware of itself).

So, at first, my universe developed a relationship boundary. As things changed, more and more boundaries were formed. But the unique and complex boundaries that are us create a relationship boundary that, like an unstable expanding droplet, might invaginate instead of expanding outward. (To us and our detection systems, universal expansion inwards may be seen like universal expansion outwards, or any other kind of expansion). What is so interesting about this phenomenon (the relationship boundary expanding inward for complex, self-aware systems) is that the RED SHIFT that indicates expansion, and the speed of expansion in our universe, may be due to the growing awareness of our universe in humans or other self-aware entities. Lots more superimposed waves (one stacked onto another) created these invaginated relationships and self-aware boundaries that, though they exist as virtual, may create a significant TENSILE FIELD in the universal boundary (just like gravitational masses do).

One more thing relating to our WHAT IS virtual reality. Just like each quark creates a primitive language of how it will relate to other quarks, and protons, neutron and electrons create their own languages of how they will bind, and atoms create their own language of how they will bond and arrange themselves, a network of neurons in the human brain creates its own language that looks nothing like their actual shape and behavior. As I put in one of my paranormals, the word LOVE looks nothing like the function itself.

The mind creates its own world through language. The more robust the language and the more it captures the qualities of the real universe, the unknowable WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS, then, perhaps, the mind might be able to observe events in time (existing only in its descriptions) that cannot be accessed through normal channels (what we call the paranormal).

Holdover: Possible Evolution of Light Skin

April 25, 2018 X: X-ray Telescopes (X-rays are not just about seeing our bones).

All free energy in the universe comes as electromagnetic waves. The higher the wave frequency (the shorter the wavelength and the greater the energy transported), the more the waves affect materials they penetrate. X-rays are of such short wavelengths and high energy frequency that they can not only penetrate human tissues to reveal bone structures, but they can “see” more deeply into the cosmos than other EM waves.

There are many kinds of telescopes. As we described here under PERSPECTIVE, a telescope (experimental setup) uses the technique of diffraction (both outward and inward), along with the human eye (and brain), to collect more electromagnetic radiation (and more information) about something maybe too far away for us to see without it.

Astronomers use all kinds of telescopes to unlock the mysteries of our universe. The targets of the largest scopes are very large distributions of matter (either as atomized gases (possibly from superNOVAS, or highly gravitational masses (high-curvature troughs)). All telescope types pick up electromagnetic energy (energized energy packets that exhibit the aspects of particle and wave).

Light telescopes use lenses and mirrors to expand sources of the light spectrum (radiating light waves/light rays/photons), and then focuses them at a focal point. Because our first telescopes collected light from the cosmos, star types are named after the colors of the rainbow.

Radio telescopes use dishes (shaped like mirrors). Instead of keeping a smooth surface for reflecting light, the longer wavelength radio waves collected must have struts close to the size of the radio wavelength. Radio “mirrors” are fashioned out of dish-shaped latices.

X-rays telescopes collect much smaller EM wavelengths than both light and radio waves. While other scopes use reflection or refraction to a focal point before analysis of the image, X-rays are detected differently than other EM waves. They move through reflective and refractive surfaces. X-rays can reflect from a surface, but not in the usual way. X-rays are only reflected back toward a focal point by something called “grazing incidence,” when the ray hits a curved surface nearly parallel to a curved surface at each point of incidence. So cylindrical mirrored surfaces in this scope are nearly parallel to the direction of incoming radiation (see NASA site).

X-rays allow us to look deeper into the cosmos at gas clouds and supernovas many light years beyond our galaxy. The hotter, the more energy the celestial event, the more x-rays are produced. The Chandra X-Ray Observatory has revealed black holes are at the center of galaxies. Stars in the galaxies are orbiting and dragged into these black holes (the densest forms of mass distribution in the universe). The detector has discovered tens of thousands of black holes in our galaxy’s center. To view what can be seen through this x-ray telescope go to the NASA site for the images.

When these scopes are on opposite sides of Earth the distance between our view of the universe (the distance between radio eyes) is the diameter of the Earth. We can expand our observations using our satellites. Though our targets move, we can expand our observations between our EM eyes to some 180 million miles (the diameter of Earth’s orbit). This helps with determining distances to Earth more accurately.

Our Experiment Analog:

Where, based on our experiments, do the potential targets around the relationship boundary that is our universe? First there are the troughs (negative amplification), the gravitational masses where information and energy is prevented from crossing because of the disadvantageous curvature there (In our expanding droplet the interfacial tension times the curvature will be strong enough to reject or damp out any external forces. Way out on the relationship boundary between these troughs (positive amplitude) the tension and curvature will go to zero and any location on the crest boundary may appear diffuse and any random perturbation will create a new boundary, depending on how statistically high the energy “leakage” is.

April 26, 2018  Y: Yin and Yang (The feminine and masculine aspects of the world)

There are those who do not believe in dualisms (that all aspects of the universe or any system within that universe can be put under two major aspect categories). WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS is all we can say about the true universe, hidden beneath all the aspects that science or religion can say about it. When we say our universe or the systems and forces within are dualistic, we’re really saying that one can modify one’s point of view in order to see it that way (Dualism, then, is a perspective).

Yin and Yang are two perspectives from such a dualistic view. They are human-centered perspectives, since humans exhibit Yin characteristics (female aspects) and Yang characteristics (male aspects)).

A missing link from our suggested artificial cell (expanding droplet with one sine wave of random perturbation on its relationship boundary where the exceptionally narrow trough burrows through the apparently circular droplet):

There are many early living cells and cellular tissues on Earth that only reproduce themselves through mitosis (assexual cell division) rather than meiosis (sexual cell division). So, today, we understand what this proves. That all things aren’t about male or female, but fall somewhere in between (especially the human mind, if it may be but freed).

The Zen Buddhist Tarot deck, Morgan Tarot, is where I got the idea for the title of this website, The Union Of Opposites. Some say that Science and Spiritualism are not opposites. According to our relational philosophy that says the real potential universe that gives birth to all aspects we ascribe to, our potential universe (WIBWI), is unknowable in its entirety and the categorization of opposites is arbitrary. We could just as well say that the entire universe can be characterized as feminine (yinistic) or masculine (yangistic), believed by the Chinese for generations. But we know today the world, even of human preferences and identities, is much more complex than that.

How are Science and Spirit opposites? The Chinese might say that in general SCIENCE is yangistic and SPIRITUALISM, yinistic. But even that definition is confused as the potential of WIBWI becomes explicit when relationship boundaries are formed between system/objects.

SCIENCE starts with speculation, but it requires proof that is repeatable, able to be used to predict future behavior. The bottom line for SCIENCE is that it is a story that works for most of the time. SPIRITUALISM may start with speculation. Because it is based on a human individual’s virtual reality, even if proof were required by believers, the spirit we experience does not often have 100% probably, so it is not often proved statistically. There may be people who frighteningly predict the future at near 100%, but that is based on how that person’s brain was formed. One person might be a very precise detector, more precise than we have equipment to measure (Their neural nets unconsciously create accurate detectors that predict how events will unfold). Such people might see into the past or future in less than a 100% way. Who would we go to in the event that we want our money to grow? We’d go to someone who could confirm future behavior at 100% rather than someones who, even with others, could only confirm less than that. And so we have a world where human communities respect and believe SCIENCE over SPIRITUALISM.

But does it make sense to do this, to only believe those scientists who seem to have proven their successful strategies for survival? In spite of what we can measure, nothing can be predicted at 100% for all time. Change is all. And ERROR always exists. 100% can apply to the here and now, or for longer durations, but not forever.

We know that some animals that have had no training can sense the possibility of a tsunami after an earthquake, and they run to higher ground. In primitive times, human tribes believed in spiritualism. Because of being raised in a world without the influence of science (as we have today) they relied on spiritualism. And it worked, evidently, because we’re here today!

For SPIRITUALISM, we need to know that the more people who are raised to accept more of the improbable INCOMING (Implicate Order Potential: David Bohm), the better chance of high probability (many more individuals than the three precogs in the movie, MINORITY REPORT).

For SCIENCE, we need to know that if we speculate or hypothesize first, we may end up proving our beliefs. After all, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, SCIENCE (the sequencing of events) is just another story until something changes and we adopt an alternate story. Hopefully, science provides us with stories that work toward our survival.

Here is a page at The Union Of Opposites Site that explains a little about the perspective of those Taoists, who existed over three-thousand years ago and whose other poems (in the book translated from Lao Tzu) illustrate the yinism of this religion.

Holdovers: Y Chromosome; Year (in terms of orbit of Earth around Sol/sun);Yellow Star (G-type, Sol); Yesterday (in terms of existence);Yolanda (A super typhoon: an example of a high energy event); Yb (element)

April 27, 2018 Z: Zero (A useful limit that has no existence in our universe).

Zero, what a silly word to discuss. I mean, everyone knows what zero means, don’t they?

Here’s the dictionary definition.

Here’s the wikipedia mathematics definition.

Now here’s mine:

There is no such thing as zero in any aspect of our WIBWI (What Is Behind What Is) universe! If there were, we wouldn’t exist. That’s what our expanding droplet experiment tells us.

Any aspect of our universe exists only if there is a change boundary or relationship boundary that allows information or energy to cross it.

Types of boundaries:

1. Massive, dense, and focused matter creates a boundary (analogous to the highly curved and inertial trough in our experiment. The high damping pressure drop because of the extreme curvature of space here, resists energy and information transfer across the boundary).
2. Lesser curvature can allow random perturbation to deform relationship boundaries, meaning energy and information may cross these relationship boundaries (Here we have existence in the dualistic aspects of form and function in spacetime).
3. When curvature goes to zero, then smaller relationship-boundaries/systems will break out of their tensile (surface or gravitational tension) constraints. In our experiment that is consistent with two fluids that share a relationship boundary when they become miscible (when they mix). As a relationship boundary diffuses, it becomes difficult for organized information to cross it, because, as in the early universe, “boundaries” are diffuse (and may no longer transmit energy or information).

So, as signal strength loads on the relationship boundary wane, they may be no longer able to transmit information, but they are never zero. And as long as there is some change, even if miniscule, the change exists with an opportunity to create another language (much like self-organized water molecules (elemental/atomic language between hydrogen and oxygen) has a much smaller attraction for other molecules of water resulting in denser water at four degrees centigrade).

In boundary #1 above, when spatial curvature is great, space disappears (and so does the relationship boundary).

In boundary #2 (Crests of the incident waves) The universe expands between newly initiated troughs that lag behind the expanding crests (higher absolute curvature regions, but curved in the opposite direction to the troughs). In our universe high curvature areas (as in our galaxies) the rate of orbital velocity (perpendicular to expansion) can increase closer to the center and toward the edge due to the absolute curvature there.

Boundary #3 sees a diffusion of gravitational tension. So, if a theory of everything is sought for relationship boundaries, it must be sought for crests and troughs of destabilizing waves, for locations of high and low gravitational tension, and for diffuse boundaries that exhibit nonlocalities.

For fluids, there is a number that can be found that characterizes it for all of the above in any state. It is called the Capillary number, and it includes units of dynamic viscosity, velocity, and surface tension. It is found by creating a fraction with the important parameters (top and bottom) and canceling out units (making it nondimensional).

For fluids with large surface tension (in the denominator of the Ca) the Ca gets very small, but remember Ca still exists because zero does not exist for any aspect in our universe (this may relate to a formless function for our universe at boundary #1. There may not be zero relationship, or zero existence).

For fluids with small surface tension (the numerator of the Ca is nearly zero), the Ca gets very large, but never reaches infinity, because, it may be that, surface tension can never be zero (depending on the number of spacetime dimensions (greater than four) along which tension can occur). May be good news for the growth of self-organized awareness (perhaps, a form’s recognition of its own flow.)

Holdover: Zeno’s Paradox (Reason we haven’t been able to reproduce relationship between aliens (that might be out there) and ourselves);

April 28, 2018    ∏: (3.14159) How much faster than light can our universe be seen to expand in our direction?

A long time ago, in order to reduce friction with the ground and move heavy objects (faster than dragging them) the wheel was invented. The neat thing about the wheel is that by geometry of a circle, the radius of the wheel could by multiplied by a number around six (6, approximately equal to 2∏) to find out how far a man, or ox, could pull a weight with one rotation of the wheels (at least two wheels for balance (remember the chariot scenes from the movie, BEN HUR?)

Today as astronomers look into the sky, there might be another geometric correlation with a circle:

How far is it to the center of our universe where the Big Bang supposedly started it all? The answer is around 14 billion light years. This link not only gives us a radial distance in time of expansion, but ways of thinking of the expansion. [Not sure they mention the idea that the relationship boundary keeps increasing, perhaps due to the universe becoming explicit (just as a sugar solution becomes explicit in crystalline form, or water becomes explicit in the form of frost). These expansive universal boundaries are relationships across some change in some factor/aspect which delineates systems that relate to one another inside the energetic surface of expansion.]

How far can we see back into the past, so we know how far our universe has expanded since its beginning?

From the shifting to the color red of the spectra (rainbows) of stars, astrophysicists can calculate the time it took for light to travel from the most distant galaxies and stars to our own (the Red Shift in light waves, as it is known, is similar to the Doppler Shift of sound waves: the faster bodies expand away from each other, the longer the wavelength of light into the red).

The time it took for the farthest galaxies we can see to send their light to us is about a duration of 14 billion years. If our universe was a sphere or circle, then, with a radius of 14 billion light years, our hemisphere (half a circumference of a circle) would measure out to be three times that, or six times that (2∏ for the whole circumference). Except ,,,

A big mystery from all of these thought experiments about our universe is: If all the other galaxies in our universe, and all the other stars in our universe, are moving away from us at three times the speed of light, then even if we traveled at warp two (two times the speed of light, which we believe to be impossible), then we’d still never reach our target star!

According to our experiment, if we could look at the emergence of our universe as the speed at which relationship boundaries become explicit (virtual, depending upon the perspectives between systems), then we can think of the universe as spherically surfaced like the surface of a blown-up balloon. Except we know, based on our experiment, the space at the surface of our universe is most certainly buckled (inward at high density areas and outward close to where these areas meld with the expanding low-density, energetic regions).

Does time pass between massive areas (Special Relativity?), the same way it does close to those areas (General Relativity?)? The farther away from a gravity well of high mass the more energetic the object, the more energy required to keep that object in its orbit at that distance. The more energetic the greater the creation of space (size of orbital length and the greater the expansion experienced).

So, since the first trough (the offset trough in our experiment) is very close to the singularity source (of the Big Bang? The black dot in the cell illustration above), everything around it would expand more the farther out you go.

The latest news suggests that our 14 billion light years is not the total distance all the way back to this black hole sink (trough), but since, when we look back that far with our telescopes the red gets more intense, then fizzles out, can we use this drop in red, or into infrared, to give us an idea of all the additional time our universe has existed before now? (Read the link and other information on event horizons around black holes to develop your own ideas about this).

The good news is that since our star is in middle age when we are here (about 5 billion light years), that doesn’t give us much time to adjust to our planet before the sun gets very hot and the Earth is no longer habitable. But if our universe were twice as old as we now think, then conscious beings that could travel the stars might exist in larger populations.

The bad news might be how this universal expansion might affect the distance we experience when we attempt to reach our target star. For multicellular beings, or structured beings as ourselves, or computational AIs, the average speed we can reach without dissociating would be so small that we’d need generation ships. By the time we got to, say, Proxima Centauri (the nearest star), because of the expansion, it may be much farther away than first estimated.

So we’re back to the question: If we could even travel the speed of light, would stars expand away from us? Would we be left adrift, never to reach our target planet? And would there be anyone out there to greet us, if the closest star systems are not energetic enough to produce a Jupiter (needed to rain down genetic material via panspermia)?