Can Dense Space Take on the Characteristics of Matter?
How bad is the following statement:
Well in physics if in doubt take that which makes the
fewest assumptions and still creates a coherent whole. And actually the above
view of the beginning of the universe does exactly that. Though the assumption
that two areas of space collide, and create particles and so forth has to be
made. So lets just ignore this whole thing more or less completely for the time
being. We can only say form the above that particles made from dense space are
necessary to complete a probably correct view of the start of the universe, but
it may be wrong!
So lets take a few more view points to this problem to see
how far we can get in deducing whether Dense packets / spheres / forms of space
act like particles. To do this we first have to look at the energy of space. A
peculiar idea but actually obviously true when we look at the idea of two balls
with a changing amount of space between them. (Space has to have the
characteristic of being able to flow (objects get heavier if they are spun very
fast, creating more gravity, creating more curved space, which is exactly
identical, mathematically and observationally to dense space, space has to flow
to the surface of the spinning object)). So lets say some space flows in-between
these two balls. They effectively move apart, therefore a change in space = a
change in energy in this example. Incidentally
the spatial increase created between the two balls is still open to
question as the exact manner of the flow of space is not known..
Right, did you spot the flaw? We are trying to look at
matter-space-energy, not kinetic energy. So this argument is also damned.
As ever in physics the answers come when you look at the
very simplest elements as they characterize and govern the characteristics of the
whole.
So can a ball of dense space be allowed and accepted as
true in Physics without invention and assumption? We know that areas of dense
space can exist, but can they remain coherent?
If we follow Siepmann’s stipulation that space is has
some stickiness they can. But I believe there is a flaw in the argument.
Essentially he argues that matter displaces space, hence dense space sits around
objects and causes gravitation. But it leaves the questions – why doesn’t it
flow away eventually. Why after we have spun a ball and built up an area of
dense space around a ball does it flow away into surrounding space and go back
exactly to its former density? In all other known substances if we immerse a
ball into a fluid, yes the displacement initially forms a region of high density
on the surface but this largely flows away. There may be a surface tension, this
is caused by a lack of bonds between water molecules at the interface and so
they pack more tightly together. The same could be said of space. But this is an
assumption and so is best ignored.
There are two other mechanisms of self coherence to
consider. First we can consider that there is a background fluctuation in space.
We can assume that space is a sea of micro fluctuations caused by bouncing
echoes from stars collapsing, the Big Bang, and so forth. In which case a
different surface tension model can be successfully built up as a ball of dense
space would absorb some of the vector flow of other moving pieces of dense space
at the interface of the ball of dense space and the surrounding fluctuating
space (unless the unlikely event of spatial superimposion is to occur). So
essentially it is entirely logical to believe that micro flows and ripples of
space bump into larger spheres of space, loose the vector component, and
therefore build up on the surface and the sphere is maintained by this surface
tension.
Or it is possible that some unknown effect is taking place.
Spin appears to cause an effect analogous to the de Broglie effect in gases,
wherein fast moving gases appear to have less density and gas flows into the
stream. This effect theoretically must take place as the theory is based again
on absorption of vector motion in and out of the moving mass. In this particular
case, a spinning ball, space must move into the faster regions of the ball and
be pushed out at the slower regions for an equilibrium to be maintained.
So it appears that two models are viable for dense space
spheres to remain coherent. Both models in the authors belief exist. It is
probable that spinning spheres absorbing and sending out streams of space are
involved in forces. As the absorption and creation of space between two objects
is equivalent to force. This is, as far as I know, the only non-abstract
description of how a force actually works, and it is actually a verification of
the model. It is a success that we can now describe force outside a mathematical
formula. It is certainly better than saying philosophically and insipidly they
just exist, and far far better than saying imagine a new completely abstract
force and lets base a whole unified theory upon its illogic.
We can see how non spin particles would suck themselves
into regions of higher density space (there must be some space mixing at the
interface for obvious reasons), and so attract one another. And that spinning
particles attract or repel depending on their single or dual plane rotation and
their orientation towards one another.
They must contain energy. If they decay into normal density
space they can set other particles in motion, if they strike they would
naturally, given the above properties have deform in an elastic fashion and
bounce away from each other (to retain an equilibrium of size and density with
the surrounding space), unless they coalesce to form a new particle. This
certainly covers the main aspects of matter.
So without assumption first it can be understood why:
E = mc2
And that where k is a constant and V is spatial volume:
kV = mc2
Happily this reaffirms the opening statement about the origins of space. QED. It is a correct theory.