Oneness and Space

[Icarus Fallen]

It seems to me that many commonly accepted 'implications' of certain cosmological observations have been underpinned by a very specific notion of 'space', and that this foundational principle (which is really nothing more than a popular presupposition) has resulted in a propensity to misinterpret the evidence, which has in turn given rise to certain conclusions, primarily where the idea of an expanding universe is concerned. It is therefore my intention to propose a vastly different theory of 'space', and to show (if only indirectly) that the aforementioned “conclusions� are more the product of the theoretical principles on which they stand than anything else.

In order to fully grasp my proposal, it’s first necessary to understand the paradigmatic rules to which it strictly adheres -- the key principle being that of oneness. In my view, there exists only one object: the universe itself. In keeping true to this postulate, there can be no whole separation (or “space�) between the many aspects of this singularity. Don't get me wrong; space exists, but only in ‘outer’ relation to the singular material that comprises the object and all of its aspects. To analogize this idea, think of a string that’s been folded in half. While there would indeed be an area between the halves, the “separation� would not be “whole�, because the connection at the delineating point would be intact. Bear in mind, the folded string is the object; the halves are its aspects; and space is the area that exists in outer relation to the totality. From this perspective, it’s necessary to think of space, not as something that exists within the universe, but as the pure nothingness in outer relation to it. Simply stated: space doesn’t reside in the universe; the universe and space exist in relation to each other.

Now, I think the most important implication of this idea, at least in terms of interpreting cosmological observations, is that “space� (or the amount of nothingness that defines the one) would be constant. So, for instance, the redshift observations often cited to support the theory that the universe is expanding would have to be reinterpreted with the apparent increases in the areas between various groupings of material being viewed in deference to the postulate that those areas are nonetheless constant. “How could this be?�, one may well ask. Simple. In line with my theory, space isn’t expanding; the universe is contracting (or, perhaps more properly, rewinding itself) in relation to space. Another analogy: think of two stationary balls of twine that are both directly connected to a third (albeit unseen) ball. If one were to wind the hidden ball, the visible balls would shrink in accordance to the amount of material being pulled away from each of them. So, as the hidden ball grows larger, the area between the others would seem to be increasing, when what’s really happening is that the respective sizes of the visible balls are decreasing in a constant space. I believe this is essentially what's happening everywhere in the cosmos, and that it’s only a matter of time before the ‘hidden ball’ (the ultimate re-collector) becomes “visible� (if only by virtue of its effects) from nearly any point of view in the universe.

Of course, commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all 'things' within a given group are contracting commensurately, the size differential from one second to the next is virtually undetectable from within that group. In reality though, what were 12 inches yesterday, relative E.G. to the group in which humanity resides, aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as a 'foot') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings. This explains how and why we (humans) are completely oblivious to the shrinking going on all around us. It is only by 'looking outside' that the various rates of contraction can be measured (via redshift observations). Going back to the balls of twine analogy, the speed at which material is being pulled away from the two visible balls is directly associated with the respective rates at which they're decreasing in size, and those commensurate decreases are what constitute the impetus for the illusion of expanding space between them.

Onto my model, I believe the universe is a single length of essentially elastic string which 'moves' in cycles, and that the directional motion at the central turning point determines whether material and energy is being gathered or dispersed. My model purports no 'starting era' (or wholesale 'beginning'); it simply posits eternally rotating cycles, the 'end game' being: life support of an eternally-existent universe. On this view, at the outset of the dispersionary phase, all of the string would be concentrated into a single ball of extreme density and highly compacted energy which initially fuels the dispersion. At the center of this ball resides the one-and-only 'stationary' point of the entire universe (It's important to understand, that by "stationary", I don't mean 'static'-- I believe, in fact, that it rotates in perpetuity throughout eternity, but also that it does so by marching in place or "marking time"). In my opinion, it's this stationary aspect of the rotating center that ultimately bears the brunt of responsibility for both universal shifts in direction; but it's still only half of the story. While the "central point" can be rightfully considered one of the two 'ends' of the universe (Yes, just like any piece of string, I believe the universe actually has two ends!), the other end is anything but stationary ...and marks the time and place at which the dispersion abruptly ends (mainly because there'd be no more material left to disperse) and the gathering begins. That is, since I don't believe this other end of the universe can be infinitely extended from its stationary counterpart (after all, even if the material in question is infinitely stretchable, the constancy of space wouldn't allow it), I think a slingshot effect quietly (at least compared to the earlier shift) begets the (re)collection phase.

As I interpret the 'evidence', we're presently experiencing life in the regathering phase.

It's important to understand: the second “law� of thermodynamics presumes a lack of equilibrium that I don’t. That is to say, the ‘system’ I'm advocating is not only ‘isolated’; it’s ‘closed’ and perfectly 'balanced' to suit its primary objective, (meaning nothing ever “escapes� or disconnects from the whole -- not even light). The theory thereby avoids perpetuating the false dichotomy between "mass" and "energy". Remember, according to Einstein's famous equation, mass and energy are one and the same thing measured in different units. This is the "m" by which velocity is multiplied to determine momentum. It’s also the "mass" at root of the gravitational effects that have been observed throughout the cosmos (even on light). Light must have mass, because it is energetic, carries momentum, and is apparently effected by gravity. The fact that light's 'rest' or 'invariant' mass is said to be zero (with E=pc), is not to say that light is massless; it's simply a statement indicating a total lack of stasis where light's mass is concerned (and BTW, I don't buy the notion that any compilation of mass is ever fully at rest, although I do believe that various conglomerates vibrate at different frequencies.)

In any case, redshift observations suggest that light is indeed being pulled right along, as groups of cosmological material are apparently speeding away from each other and accelerating in the process. But don't forget, according to my theory, "space" is constant, so the "illusion" of expansion must be created by the shrinkage of 'light' material in favor of the growth of the 'dark', all of which is ultimately inter-connected. Think of two rapidly deflating balloons in a box.. As they deflate, the area between them would seem to be expanding. Furthermore, from each of the balloons' points of view, the other may appear to be moving away. But the amount of occupiable area in the box would only seem to change by virtue of the motion of its inhabitants.

I'm only theorizing, of course; just as any proponent of an 'expansion-only' model theorizes to explain things as he or she interprets the 'evidence'. Again, we all know cosmic redshifting shows that groups of material are apparently speeding away from each other. The E-only theorists assume that "space" isn't constant and that it must be expanding between the groups; I suggest that the groups are shrinking in relation to constant space. The correct answer, as to which idea the "evidence" supports, is both -- meaning the issue of 'truth' stands on the veracity of opposing interpretations.

[McCulloch]

Simply stated: space doesn’t reside in the universe; the universe and space exist in relation to each other.

How does that relate to general relativity and curved spacetime?

Of course, commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory.

What aspect of reality is it that your theory, if we can properly call it that, is meant to explain? Does it provide any mathematical models of the universe that could be tested against cosmological data?

I'm only theorizing, of course;

more like hypothesizing really.

[Icarus Fallen]

We worship in different temples, McCulloch (the South Park episode, in which Cartman travels to the future to find that "science" had been elevated to the status of divinity in the interim, comes to mind here. -- "Science damn you!"

I'm a lover of wisdom; not a tester of hypotheses. I'm also largely 'self-educated', by which I mean that my 'formal' education barely extended to the 10th grade (U.S.). I'm not telling you these things in a quest for sympathy or in hopes of receiving the 'kid glove' treatment from you or anyone else; I'm just offering some insight into where I'm coming from, so that any perceived deficiencies (methodological or otherwise) may be deemed understandable, at least to some extent. And if it means that I'm doomed to never be "taken seriously", so be it.

I'd written:

Simply stated: space doesn’t reside in the universe; the universe and space exist in relation to each other.

You ask:

How does that relate to general relativity and curved spacetime?

First of all, I believe that "time" and "space" are entirely distinct and that it's a mistake to conflate them or combine them for the sake of a unified theory. They're simply too incompatible for that, IMO.

In my view, what's "curved" (or 'curvable' -- I don't care if that's not a word.) is matter in motion; never "space".

I'd written:

Of course, commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory.

You ask:

What aspect of reality is it that your theory, if we can properly call it that, is meant to explain?

In my opinion, operating atop monistic principles provides a higher degree of 'explanatory power' for notions across the theoretical (or hypothetical) spectrum.

One example would be the strangeness of quanta. If all 'things', from the micro to the macro, are ultimately interconnected, then appearances on the sub-atomic level are explainable in terms of the oneness. Accordingly, what manifests as a 'particle' in one instance and a 'wave' in the next should be viewed as perspectival illusions. Looking down from above on an ocean of waves, one is bound to catch glimpses of only the tips of some of those waves from time to time ...and might reasonably be inclined to describe what he or she saw in those instances as "particle-like".

Gravity's another good example among many others, none of which I'll get into at the moment.

You continue:

Does it provide any mathematical models of the universe that could be tested against cosmological data?

Not that I'm aware of; but then my mathematical prowess is suspect at best. Some very basic algebra and a little Set Theory knowledge pretty much delineate the outermost limits for me.

I'd written:

I'm only theorizing, of course;

You respond:

more like hypothesizing really.

Well, I'm confident that what I've offered, limited as it is, qualifies on the whole as "a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained", so I'll be perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on that point.

[McCulloch]

First of all, I believe that "time" and "space" are entirely distinct and that it's a mistake to conflate them or combine them for the sake of a unified theory. They're simply too incompatible for that, IMO.

[Appeal to authority]It is good to see that you disagree with Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein, Riemann, Ehrenfest, Weyl, Minkowski, Penrose, Schrödinger and Hawking. [/Appeal to authority]
Since their work is backed up by rigorous mathematics and your opinion is not, a reasonable person will go with them.

[Icarus Fallen]

Since their work is backed up by rigorous mathematics and your opinion is not, a reasonable person will go with them.

And more power to 'em!

I'm not here to try to sway anyone's ideas or opinions; I'm just here to voice my own -- taking heart in the knowledge that truth is no respecter of "authority" (nor of the general consensus).