Adjusted Definitions for CST to avoid confusion:
Quanta = a corpuscle of energy, used in the singular and plural syntax.
Photon = a single quantum of light (leptonic), or an open lepton string containing many phase-entangled quanta.
I think in terms of real world objects. I use geometry to solve problems. That is an unpopular methodology
in physics today, perhaps because Einstein tried it and failed, and others are afraid to look the fool by
trying it again. Not so I, heheh. Einstein didn't know about quarks. I think if he had known about them in
time, he would have recognised them as reference points in a system of geometry, and there would be a lot
less for me to do. So, lets get started.
Colliding string theory is a totally corpuscular open and closed string model. This website deals mostly
with closed hadron strings and closed lepton strings. The hadron strings are the loops of string
in the nuclear models; the lepton strings are represented by the strings external to the spherical geometry
of the nuclear shells, referred to as pinned vector bosons (P.V.B.'s). When strings close into loops,
they can go around and around at c (the speed of light) without actually going anywhere. When a string
is broken, it shoots off in a straight-line path at c, and these broken strings are representative of
photons and/or discreet quanta. When I say that the strings are "corpuscular" in nature, I mean that
a string is composed of many discreet quanta of the same frequency that are stacked with momentum vectors
aligned, and are phase-entangled with each other. By "phase-entangled" I mean that every quanta has imprinted
the next address in the string upon itself. (I'm going to defer the subjects of string address loops and string
clocks for another time, perhaps when I have a better grasp of how they work.) A quanta has a couple of
interesting states of motion that can be defined for it from classical geometry, it has momentum that can be
represented by a straight line vector, and it has angular momentum that can be represented as an axial
rotation of the quanta about its momentum vector. We can represent these two quantities by arrows, as in the
following diagram.
If we then go on to stack these discreet quanta with momentum vectors aligned to form strings, we could represent
them with the following diagram.
The linear direction of motion for a string is not necessarily the direction in which its momentum is applied, but
instead depends on the "handedness" of the string. This has much to do with how elementary particles recoil upon
emitting or absorbing a quanta. As you might have guessed, quantum gravity is involved in this discussion. As many
people are aware, General Relativity and quantum gravity are at odds with each other, they cannot both be right.
I'm going to ask you to put aside General Relativity, the reason GR and quantum gravity cannot be reconciled is
because Einstein made a quite understandable error in what was causing space-time to warp near a gravitating body...
it's not gravity that warps space-time, it is a side effect of the phenomenon of charge. The error actually goes
back to James Clerk Maxwell, who developed a "negative energy" theory of gravity in addition to his famous work
defining the force of charge. Maxwell's theory of gravity was abandoned by him as it added energy to the nucleus,
and Maxwell did not know what the nucleus would do with that energy. (CCST does not attempt to introduce the concept
of "negative energy" gravitons, in CST energy is related in terms of angular momentum, which can be left handed or
right handed.) What Maxwell failed to realize is that the phenomenon of charge was doing work, and work requires a
source of energy. Maxwell failed to make the connection between charge using energy and gravity supplying that energy.
Charge was treated as a field without couriers, and Einstein followed Maxwell's lead in defining gravity as a field,
neither of which defined couriers of the forces. In a quantum universe, though, forces are quantized, as are fields,
and both the theory of gravity and of charge require a courier particle. And once that courier particle is recognized
and introduced into the two field theories a compelling picture emerges that makes short work of some serious
misconceptions in physics. In colliding string theory, gravity and charge are corpuscular radiations facilitating
the exchange of angular momentum. The charge phenomenon, be it positive or negative charge, causes the energy-density
of space-time to increase. Gravity does just the opposite. Stay with me a few minutes and I'll explain my reasoning.
Okay, so far I have defined a quanta as having a linear component of motion, momentum, and angular momentum. The angular
momentum can be construed as the axial rotation of the quanta about its momentum vector. A quanta also has frequency, and
we could construe this frequency to be the rotation rate of the quanta about the axis of its momentum vector. The frequency
of a quanta is a scalar quantity, as is its energy. By "a scalar quantity" I mean that it can have any non-zero value of
axial rotation. I believe the axial rotation frequency and the energy of a quanta are equivalent terms, the faster the
quanta rotates about its axis, the more energy it has. There is one other important geometric feature of the quanta, and
that is its volume. Conventional physics says that the angular momentum of a quanta is conserved at +/-h, but I
think it makes much more sense to say that the moment of angular momentum is conserved at +/-h. There is a big difference,
because obviously, if the angular momentum is constant, and the energy of a quanta is related to its angular momentum,
then all quanta would always be at exactly the same energy. But if it is the moment of angular momentum that is conserved at
+/-h, then we can give the quanta a scalar energy content and merely alter the volume of the quanta to maintain its
moment of angular momentum at +/-h. It works rather like the figure skater who goes into a spin, as she pulls her
arms in, she spins faster, and as she extends her arms, she goes slower. Indeed, this is just what we see happening with a
quanta, the more energy (frequency) it has, the smaller its cross-section, and the less energy it has, the larger its cross
section. If we stack these (presumably spherical) quanta into a string, then as we double the frequency of the string we halve
its volume, and consequently the length of the string is also halved. Are you following along carefully? Things are beginning
to get interesting, because if we apply these arguments, it is a simple matter to figure out what is happening to warp space-time
around a gravitating body, and we can even give a pretty good accounting of why the universe appears to be expanding. But to do
that, we must take a closer look at the phenomenon of charge.
Before I tackle charge, I must add some properties to a quanta related to its volume, and that is the spatial dimensions
of space-time within which that volume locates itself. We are quite familiar with the four dimensions of space-time, three
of these dimensions are spatial, and one is time-like. Suppose I was to take the three spatial dimensions and, using the
time-like dimension as an axis of rotation, rotate the spatial dimensions through 90 degrees? In doing so, I would create
a new space-time domain, one that shares the time-like dimension, and a similar coordinate system. But when I tried to
look at an object in this domain from the normal spatial dimensions, all I would see of the object is the points at which
it intersects the space I am familiar with. The rotation is actually a bit more complex than rotation on the temporal axis,
each spatial dimension's linear orientation has been turned through 90 degrees, and the time-like dimension has merely
rotated axially by 90 degrees to give no discernable effect. It's a tough concept to visualize; we are not used to thinking
in those terms. Mathematicians would call it an orthogonal rotation, or SQRRT(-1), or i.
Now, this added dimensionality, this extra domain in which a quanta can locate its volume implies that we must double the
number of string types. If we consider Hadron strings and Hadron anti-strings (of opposite handedness) to occupy the spatial
dimensions we are familiar with, then we must define strings and anti-strings for this new domain, and I refer to these as
Lepton strings and Lepton anti-strings. Now we have four basic string types, strings that vary in handedness and dimensionality.
We need convenient labels to define the spatial dimensions these strings occupy, so let us say that hadron strings locate
their volume in "hadron space," and lepton strings locate their volume in "lepton space." Now, if I can build hadrons out
of hadron string in hadron space, it follows that I should be able to build leptons out of lepton string in lepton space.
And if I take a chunk of broken lepton string, a photon, it will travel in a straight line path in lepton space until it
encounters a particle that is capable of absorbing it... will that particle be a hadron? Probably not, as hadrons locate
their volume in hadron space, so the photon of lepton string is most likely going to encounter another lepton, a particle
that locates its volume in lepton space. The most common particles in lepton space that we are aware of are electrons, so
it is very likely that photons composed of lepton string will exhibit a marked preference for interactions with electrons
rather than hadrons. Conversely, if we were to break off a chunk of hadron string, it should fly through hadron space until
it encounters another hadron to interact with. You might be asking at this point, what does all this have to do with charge?
Well, suppose there were some process in nature that could transform the dimensionality of a quanta, transforming it from
lepton space to hadron space, or vice versa? I believe that charge is just such a process.
In order to understand how this process works, we have to think about space itself. Is space empty? No, in colliding string
theory space is filled with energy-depleted quanta. These depleted quanta become the couriers of the charge force. When a
depleted quanta of hadron space strikes a hadron string or a quark surface it is "reflected" into lepton space, taking some
energy from the hadron string or quark which facilitated the reflection. If we add energy to the depleted quanta in the
reflection process, we enhance its angular momentum, and cause its volume to shrink slightly. It is a little bit less
depleted than it was before the encounter, and now it is no longer a constituent of hadron space, it is a depleted quanta
of lepton space. If it then encounters a lepton, it can be reflected back into hadron space, gaining a tiny bit of energy
in the process, which again causes its volume to diminish somewhat. Imagine what will happen to the energy-density of
space-time around a heavy body such as the Earth, a body that has trillions upon trillions of charge sources in it. The
energy-density gradient of space-time will be dramatically increased; those depleted quanta comprising space will not be
nearly so depleted near the Earth as they would if they were out between the galaxies, away from any charge sources. This
is what warps space-time, the depleted quanta comprising space are becoming more energetic, implying that their volume is
shrinking, and you can therefore stuff a lot more of them into a smaller region of space. Space-time becomes "warped."
But, hold on a second there! If charge is enhancing the energy-density of local space-time by stealing small amounts of energy
from the nucleus, then the nuclei will eventually run out of energy, won't they? Well, that's pretty good thinking, the
nucleus must have some way to replace the energy that it is surrendering to space via the charge process. This is where
corpuscular gravitational radiation comes in, quantum gravity. Suppose instead of flipping the intrinsic arrows of
momentum and angular momentum for a depleted quanta striking the nucleus, the nucleus occasionally flips only one of
these internal arrows as it transforms the volume of the depleted quanta from one space-time domain to the other? The
transformed quanta now has the opposite handedness as it had before it encountered the nucleus. That would equate to
a violation of conservation of energy, or conservation of angular momentum (which may be the same thing). The difference
in angular momentum of the courier quanta is 2 x its initial energy, where did that energy go? Well, it was the nucleus
that did the single flip and transformation of the depleted quanta from one space-time domain to the other, so the nucleus
gets to add that 2x energy to itself. So, what we have is charge enhancing the energy-density gradient of space-time,
"warping" space-time, and gravity acting to replace the energy the nucleus is surrendering to space-time by occasionally flipping
the handedness of a charge courier. Keep in mind that the direction momentum is applied is dependent on the handedness of
the energy, like-handed energy recoils, energy of opposite handedness is attractive. The single-flipped charge courier has
become a courier of the gravitational force in whatever domain (lepton space or hadron space) it happens to have wound up in.
So, if you're thinking ahead a little bit, you should be able to answer this question: Why does the universe expand? If
the gravitational couriers have the opposite handedness as the depleted quanta of space-time, then when a graviton has
an energy exchange with a depleted quanta, each loses some of its angular momentum in the exchange, and the result of
each quanta losing angular momentum is?... Why sure, they must increase their volume! So, while corpuscular gravitational
radiation pulls material bodies like stars and planets and galaxies towards each other in an attractive fashion, the
mixing of gravitons with the depleted quanta of space causes the volume of those depleted quanta to increase, particularly
in deep space between the galaxies. If that's true, then gravity is actually causing the universe to expand! The galaxies
aren't actually flying away from each other at fantastic speeds, they're pretty much standing still in the universe, and
it is the volume of space between the galaxies that is expanding. It helps to think of every quantum in the universe as
conserving one scalar unit of volume. The cross section of that volume depends on the angular momentum of the individual
quanta. As the free energy in the universe cancels angular momentum with gravitons of opposite handedness, the volume of
space increases.
That's not the whole story, though. If the angular momentum a nucleon loses to charge interactions equals the amount of
angular momentum its writing checks for with gravitational radiation, then the net angular momentum of the universe never
changes, so it can't be expanding. I need to point out that the recoil effects of charge and gravity take a tiny amount
of the net angular momentum of colliding corpuscles and convert it to thermal kinetic energy, (i.e. the motion related to
the pull or recoil of the exchange). So, charged particles actually give up energy in two ways, direct angular momentum
exchanges with corpuscular quanta, as well as the kinetic motion of the interaction. There also may be kinetic losses to
scattering interactions. From a cosmological perspective, if the charged particles were not also converting a portion of
their angular momentum to thermal kinetic energy, the angular momentum in the universe would not be running down, and
space-time would never have expanded. We only get an expanding universe if angular momentum is being consumed in the
performance of work. Corpuscular charge and corpuscular gravitational interactions are performing most, if not all, of
that work.
What gives a particle mass? Well, in CCST the down quarks are the most likely candidates for generating corpuscular
gravitational radiation, as they are a point interface between lepton space and hadron space. But mass, that is a spatial
drag force, the largest contributor being the summed recoil effects of all those charge interactions. There could be some
contribution by the down quark's bridge between lepton and hadron space, a sort of interdimensional drag effect, but I
submit that recoils from charge interactions is the best interpretation, that and the effects of generating and absorbing
corpuscular gravitational radiation.
This works well for explaining hadron mass, but there is a problem with lepton mass, that being that the ratio of electron
to proton mass is 1:1836. You would think that if charge is equivalent but of opposite polarity for the electron and proton,
the mass for each particle should be similar, because they are assumed to be participating
in equivalent exchanges with charge couriers to generate equivalent charge fields. If gravitational mass equals inertial
mass, and we know gravitons are replacing angular momentum surrendered to space in the charge process, as well as any
losses to kinetic activity, then the actual mass of the proton would be the sum of the kinetic losses plus the total
angular momentum loss. So, it would follow that either the electron is not losing any kinetic energy to recoils, which
implies it isn't participating in charge interactions (can't be right), or the electron is not losing a similar proportion
of angular momentum in charge interactions compared to the proton. If the depleted quanta of lepton space are energetic
enough, then it is conceivable that charge couriers are being translated from lepton to hadron space with no loss of
angular momentum to the electron. It is very possible that electrons are not sacrificing any angular momentum if they are
immersed in a more energetic space-time medium, whereas protons are losing angular momentum to the energy enhancement of
corpuscles converted from hadron space to lepton space. In that case the electrons may only very rarely generate any
gravitational radiation in lepton space. There is something very weird going on with this disparity in mass, and it almost
certainly has something to do with a large differential vacuum energy between lepton space and hadron space. It's almost as
if hadron space is expanding and depleting, whereas lepton space is contracting and being energetically enhanced, or maybe
the arrow of time in lepton space is pointed in the opposite direction as hadron space. Of course, the diagram above for the
down quark's negative charge transfer would be affected in that the corpuscle would start out energetic in lepton space and
not be enhanced in the reflection. It would still be enhancing the energy of hadron space upon its arrival by its higher
starting energy content.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent because in either case it turns
out that you are talking about a change in momentum for the particle. Leptons appear to be of very low mass because they are
not surrendering energy to lepton space, so the occasional lepton graviton might be emitted to compensate recoils, or the
electron may be able to "recharge" its energy by way of charge interactions (strangely ironic) if lepton space is sufficiently
energetic. In the charge process, the quark's charge mirror and the corpuscular courier of the charge force "mix phases," a
reference to the spatial fields of the quark and the courier engaging in a physical exchange of angular momentum. The less
energetic of the two can aquire energy from the more energetic source, and in hadron space that is generally the Up quark. But
in lepton space it appears as though the courier corpuscle is sufficiently high in energy that the electron can actually gain
or maintain its angular momentum by stealing energy from space (the charge couriers of lepton space are surrendering energy
to the electron, instead of the converse, as occurs with hadrons in hadron space). If the electron is already "fully charged"
in terms of angular momentum, it will probably add the excess energy to its captive photon.
In any case, mass is almost certainly a product of interactions involving angular momentum (and kinetic energy) exchanges with
couriers of the corpuscular fields of charge and gravity. It is essentially a spatial drag effect associated with particles that
engage in phase-mixing interactions with corpuscular fields. If you move a particle at relativistic velocities against the ether
medium (depleted quanta), you increase the drag effect via increased elastic scattering interactions and ultimately stress the
charge quantization. The particle has to generate greater gravitational radiation to replace energy lost to scattering and in
support of charge interactions. If gravitational radiation can't supply sufficient energy to the particle to maintain charge
quantization, the charge winds of the particle are diminished. Result: Increased mass (spatial drag), reduced rates of physical
interactions (from reduced charge currents).
Which brings up the topic of time dilation. Time dilation is an apparent effect, like throwing a roast in the freezer. Physicists
should know by now that Einstein was talking about the imperfect rulers that we use to measure time. Einstein's refutation of
simultaneity was a proof that the dividing line between past and future is exceedingly thin, that everything happens right now,
but since our rulers to measure time and space are flawed, we can not determine with any certainty the simultaneity of any two
events we observe at differing locations in space-time. That's about as succinctly as I can put it.
Kip Thorne's time machine is logically flawed, as are any time machines using relativistic time dilation,
the phenomenon of "now" is universal. It matters not what the rate of the local clock is, it is always now. Both mouths of the
wormhole in Kip's time machine are exactly the same age in absolute time. If this were not true, then the twins in Einstein's
twin paradox could never shake hands again. The stationary one would be in the now, the relativistic traveler would be in the
past. For Kip's time machine to work, time dilation would have to be a real effect. Kip Thorne has promoted his timepieces to
an absolute status. If he were to adjust the time on one of his chronometers, the universe would have to change to match it.
I don't care how great your clock maker is; you aren't going to change the date in the universe around you by changing the
display on your timepiece. No, what really happened at the end of the relativistic journey of Kip's wormhole time machine is
that Kip forgot to send a technician to the spacecraft to reset the clock to local time. Apparently a great number of physicists
share this misconception, else Kip could never have published such an obviously flawed theory. My apologies to Dr. Thorne for
singling him out, his wormhole time machine is just the most popular example of the misnomer. (For a bit more background on this
topic, see the Mirrors, Strings & Manifolds pages.)
Recently scientists have been dismayed to learn that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. I
cannot say that I find this to be a terribly surprising state of affairs. What surprised me most about this discovery is
that they were able to detect it at all. I have a cosmological model that I first disclosed in a one page report back in
February or March of 1995 that supports this situation, but it is so surprising in the way it depicts our universe that I
have been reluctant to share it without further supporting observations from our astronomers. I actually figured out
what was wrong with my original black hole cosmogony by watching my own video lecture "Mirrors, Strings & Manifolds"
produced in 1994, when I realized that the strings I had developed in parallel with the cosmogony had advanced to the
point where they no longer supported the initial assumption of infinite compressibility. Eliminating that assumption from
the cosmogony led to the conclusion that mathematical singularities were an impossibility in CCST, that something far more
exotic would arise in the collapsar process, I dubbed it "Nuclear Ice." Anyway, there are some intuitive difficulties with
the theory that I have not yet resolved to my satisfaction, however they are mostly on the Parent universe side of the
Einstein-Rosen Bridge. Colliding String Theory makes lots of predictions, unlike any other string theory, and the following
cosmogony is probably one of the most outrageous predictions of the theory. I just don't see any way around it, though, so
I might as well spill it out and give the astronomers something to do.
Essentially, the collapsar in the Parent universe initiates a special spreadsheet function on the collapsing mass, shunting
all the entropy out of it during the supernova explosion. A ball of nuclear ice is formed in a minimum entropy condition. The
nuclear ice contains lepton and hadron shells of quarks in maximum compactification. A rotation of dimensions on the nuclear
ice encloses it in a new space-time manifold constrained by the surface of the nuclear ice in the parent universe. (Yes, the
N-ice occupies both space-time domains, but behaves differently in each. The structure of the ice in the parent universe may
act to map a space-time reference grid to the daughter universe. There are certain esoteric aspects of the theory I don't discuss
much to prevent confusion and wasted arguments in topics that few would appreciate at this point, and many would challenge.
Better for now to focus on the simple consequences, and leave theoretical intricacies for a time when conclusive evidence is
at hand.) The nuclear ice does not radiate gravitationally, nor does it engage in charge interactions in the daughter universe,
as there is no room for couriers of those forces within the nuclear ice. Only the surface of the iceball is exposed to free space,
so the nuclear ice begins to melt at the surface, at first it fills the null space of the manifold with energy. This is a time
when the dimensional volume of space-time is actually being manufactured from the energy being stripped off of the nuclear ice.
This iceball could have dominated the volume of the manifold. Did it fill the manifold? Perhaps, its initial volume in the parent
universe defines the manifold limit, however there may be effects in dimensionally translating the energy that might reduce the
profile of the N-ice in the daughter universe. Was there a rapid explosion of energy from the surface when it first emerged into
the daughter manifold? That, I don't know. There are essentially no external forces I can think of that would have initiated the
nuclear ice to start melting at the surface, beyond the sudden loss of external pressure and gravitational radiation when the
ice was rotated into the new set of dimensions. That might have been enough to cause the nuclear ice to start melting. Then
again, with no definable external influences, the possibility that an internal influence is at work cannot be dismissed. This
is a gray area, but we will assume some condition as yet undefined initiated surface stripping of the ice. In which case the
universe would have eventually blossomed into a large spherical cavity, the nuclear iceball shrinking back from the walls of
the manifold as energy depletes and generates spatial volume.
To get the universe full of stars and galaxies we have today, I think a great deal of energy is sprayed into null space before
sufficient backpressure arises to begin impeding the stripping action off the surface of the nuclear ice. When the pressure
and energy-density of the manifold is sufficiently high, and the temperature sufficiently low, all that energy starts condensing
into protons, neutrons and electrons, hydrogen gas. At this point in time, material stripping off the nuclear ice starts
condensing into matter fairly close to the iceball, and the presence of that gas near the iceball offers increased resistance
to energy escaping from the surface of the nuclear ice. This increased resistance causes an immense shroud of hydrogen gas to
form around the iceball, and even though there is no gravitational radiation coming from the ice itself, as the energy stripped
from the surface of the ice condenses into matter it begins to participate in charge interactions, and produces gravitons as a
consequence. The shroud is gravitationally bound to itself, trying to collapse in on the nuclear ice, but the radiation pressure
of the ice evaporating into energy at the surface holds the hydrogen shroud up off the ice, even as it adds hydrogen to the
shroud. The energy-density of space-time rises dramatically as you approach the nuclear ice, and the high energy-density of
space-time in the hydrogen shroud and at the surface of the nuclear ice will moderate, or slow, the rate at which the nuclear
ice melts. That moderating effect raises pressure near the N-Ice surface, and it is possible that this effect would cause some
elements beyond hydrogen to form beneath the shroud.
The very first galaxies probably formed in free space, sprinkling the universe with them in a fairly even distribution. Gravity
would act to open bubbles and voids by depleting the energy-density of space between the galaxies over time. But any later galaxies
would likely arise in the mantle of hydrogen surrounding the nuclear ice. Now, as you might imagine, there will be perturbations
in this massive hydrogen shroud. Shock waves from the nuclear ice could perturb the gas in the shroud globally, causing dozens,
perhaps hundreds of galaxies to form in the shroud from a single event. As the stars in these galaxies light off their nuclear fires,
the radiation pressure of starlight makes these galaxies in the shroud like bubbles in a bottle of soda pop. They rise up through
the thick hydrogen shroud seeking regions of space-time at lower energy-density, flat space. Enormous walls and rivers of hot young
galaxies emerge and move out into flat space-time away from the shroud. Eventually they start to cool, and the gravity from the
shroud and the increasing density of the galaxies as they cool starts to draw them back in towards the hydrogen shroud... but they
may never make it back, because all the gravitational radiation from the shroud is causing the expansion of space between the shroud
and its orphaned galaxies. So, where is this core object to the universe that is manufacturing new galaxies? Well, I think maybe its
about 250-300 million light years behind us, sadly hidden from view by the core of our galaxy. It is a region we call the "Great
Attractor." This region is estimated to contain about 5-quadrillion solar masses to explain its gravitational influence. We are part
of a massive wall of galaxies 250 million light years away from it, and 500 million light years away from us on the other side of the
Great Attractor is another huge wall of galaxies, the Shapley supercluster.
Surfing the web for an X-ray survey of the Great Attractor, finding that a region
called Abell 3627 seems to be the hotspot of interest to the folks trying to explain all the mass in the G.A., that spherical
blot of concentric circles in the hard x-ray plot grabs my attention. I'm immediately riveted, yet disappointed, I thought it
would be much bigger. It's listed as an elliptical in one online blurb, but another identifies it as a Seyfert 1 type galaxy.
So, I start thinking, maybe this isn't it, maybe there is no nuclear ice. It all depends on how entropy is handled in the
collapsar. But then I think, it has to be there, or if not there, somewhere else, but the nuclear ice has to be somewhere,
because it just solves far too many problems if it is there, and creates numerous conceptual difficulties for me if its not.
But then I start to think about the enormous energy-density, the "curvature" of space-time near the shroud. It may have a
smaller apparent diameter seen at a distance due to the extremely high energy-density of the region. We are used to looking
out away from it, at flat space-time. Space-time is not flat near this object; it should be a very high energy-density region.
That might tend to reduce the angular diameter of the object in our telescopes. It might be as though you were looking at it
and the objects near it through the wrong end of the telescope. In fact, I believe there was a discrepancy of 50 million light
years from where the Great Attractor was expected to be, and where the Abell 3627 cluster was located at 300 million light
years. I think I also saw mention of having to use a microscope to count the galaxies in the image, though I'm not sure if
that is significant. There should be a spherical space-time distortion, looking to the side of it would provide a shorter path
for light than looking right at it. It's like a big hill in space-time. If the hill is taller than its radius, it takes less
time to drive around it than it takes to drive over it. With the high gravity the shroud is sourcing, this hill in space-time
should be surrounded by a mote, a region of very depleted space-time from the intense gravitational radiation permeating it.
This assumes the "mote" isn't full of galaxies, in which case the voids would be forming farther away.
I've been ruminating on this cosmology for over a decade, and I have always suspected that this object was hidden behind our galaxy
in the Great Attractor, or else we would have seen it by now. However, considering the possibility of optical spatial distortions,
it seems possible we could have looked right at it and never suspected its true nature. We have grown accustomed to the idea that
space-time is very flat, but I don't think anyone anticipated that there might be a unique physical center to the universe where
space would be highly curved. We can't see everything behind our galaxy's disc, and what I have seen of the ROSAT X-ray survey
is very limited, so there may be other targets of interest I am not aware of. On the other hand, it may exist elsewhere in the
universe, in one of the other superclusters of galaxies, and the gravitational shenanigans going on 250 million l.y. behind us
are due to more mundane physics. Still, I think that particular X-ray galaxy needs to be closely scrutinized to absolutely rule
out the possibility that it is not an anomalous region of space-time containing an exotic object in a super-massive hydrogen
shell. If we can find it, no more missing mass; no more mystery to the assymetry between matter and antimatter, we would know
that our universe formed from a collapsar in a parent universe, and is following the conservation laws of the parent universe
in some translated fashion; we'd have a model of how multiple QM histories for objects are recorded in the temporal dimension,
and we would have a ready explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe. So, it's kind of important to find this
fizzing ball of nuclear ice, if it still exists, and for my money, it should still exist.
found a strong spherical X-ray source right where I thought one should be.
So, according to this theory of creation, the beginning of our universe wasn't really a Big Bang,
it was a Pop-Fizzz... and the fizzing is still going on today. Why do I think this? Well, the universe is accelerating in its
expansion. That implies more material is being added to the universe from the nuclear ice that then begins charge interactions
and gravitational radiation, and its that increase in gravitational radiation in the universe that is driving the increased rate
of expansion. I call the black hole cosmogony that generates nuclear ice "N-Ice Theory," (smile) and it leads to the "Pop-Fizz"
cosmology. I think the thing that surprised me the most about this cosmology is that it describes the universe as a spherical
manifold with a distinct centerpiece. If astronomers are correct about how much mass is missing from the universe, up to 70% of
the total mass of the universe could still be tied up in the nuclear ice and the hydrogen shroud. The question is, where is it?
The Great Attractor seems like a good place to start looking, if only because the astronomers are so baffled and clutching at
faraway walls of galaxies to try and explain the gravitational influence of the region. Five quadrillion solar masses is
a lot to explain. What's the mass of the Milky Way, 800 billion solar masses? 1,250 Milky Way Galaxies per quadrillion solar
masses? That's 6,250 Milky Way galaxies worth of mass 250-300 million light years behind our galaxy. Supposedly there
are around 600 galaxies in Abell 3627. Hum. All of them must be really big galaxies. Either that, or maybe one of them isn't a
galaxy at all.
"Electrons constitute about 1% of galactic cosmic rays. It is not known why electrons are apparently less efficiently accelerated than nuclei."
R. A. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology, Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics 1996.
Hmmm... Dr. Mewaldt observed in the previous paragraph that "It is believed that most galactic cosmic rays derive their energy
from supernova explosions, which occur approximately once every 50 years in our Galaxy." This struck me as odd, since it is
electrons that tend to absorb and emit photons efficiently, whereas nuclei are rarely struck by photons. What if electrons
really are inefficiently accelerated from a supernova explosion, and nuclei are efficiently accelerated? It would imply that
the bulk of the energy thrown off by the supernova is not ordinary light composed of lepton string, instead it would have to
be composed mostly of hadron string being released by crushed nuclei in the collapsar. This type of radiant flux would interact
with the nuclei directly, virtually ignoring the nuclei's surrounding electron clouds. Lepton string, light, propagates through
lepton space, where electron structure is located. Hadron string propagates through hadron space, where nuclear structures reside.
If Dr. Mewalt's observation is correct in all regards, and I have little reason to doubt that it is, it provides circumstantial
evidence of massive hadron fusion emissions, nuclei being crushed into smaller or more efficient quark packing strategies,
and subsequently emitting a lot of photons of superfluous hadron string. What strikes me as most curious is the implication that
lepton string emissions (normal light) are largely absent from a supernova's radiant flux, else the electrons would be similarly
accelerated. That tends to imply that the electrons aren't getting crushed together in the collapsar like the hadrons are, and in
a way that makes sense, since the bulk of gravitational radiation is propagated in hadron space by hadrons, and primarily affects
hadrons. It does raise some questions, like, what's happening with the electrons in the collapsar? And what about degenerate matter,
wouldn't neutron stars have a positive surface charge if the electrons weren't crushed into it? Perhaps it is that the supernova
explosion is triggered by the initiation of a quantum mechanical spreadsheet on the collapsing mass, and it is discarding excess
energy in a calculated way, even as it organizes the remainder.
Before closing this page and moving on there is one additional topic I would like you to consider. If the ether is composed of
depleted quanta, and the charge phenomenon uses these depleted quanta as courier particles, then charge constitutes an ether
wind. The ether wind generated by local charge sources would flood any attempt to detect the ether wind generated by the Earth's
motion through the universe. This is known as an "ether drag" theory, and Colliding String Theory suggests that this is the
reason the famous Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect the ether wind. The corpuscular ether, as depleted quanta of light,
interact at the speed of light, so the ether corpuscles exchange excess energy very quickly in the presence of matter, and shed
it just as quickly when the matter moves off. The ether background of the universe remains relatively stationary by virtue of the
fact that the depleted quanta are constantly intermixing at c, and never traveling very far to do so. In quick review, charge is
a short range force that enhances the energy-density of space-time, and gravity is a long-range force that diminishes the
energy-density of space-time. In proximity of a gravitating body full of charge sources, the energy-density of space-time is
enhanced. At longer range the emitted gravitons are reducing the energy-density of space-time, driving the expansion of the
universe. If we were to consider a universe empty but for one star, there would be a gentle ether zephyr, an avalanche in space,
flowing towards that star. Indeed, any gravitating body should generate an ether zephyr. Some of our spacecraft are showing
a small anomalous acceleration towards the sun, and now there is evidence of anomalous effects on Earth flybys of spacecraft.
I suggest that ether zephyrs are quite possibly the reason why.
Some links used in researching Abell 3627, including the one I swiped the X-ray image from (I believe "fair use" rules apply in this situation):
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9602140
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/14_1/renee/paper/node4.html (Purloined X-ray image.)
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/greatatt.htm
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060419_attractorfrm.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9909094