Metaphyiscs and Cosmology



Metaphysics and Cosmology

The first [30] Scenarios of the algorithm orbit-gravity-sim-12.exe, (OGS12) examine how orbits are altered from the Newtonian paths by the principles from the various theories and interpretations of Relativity. For the first time, these simulators now also had flexible scales for both time and distance. After constructing this algorithm it became instantly compelling to test other theories in astrophysics: specifically the time it takes for stars to hypothetically form out of gas-clouds; and similar to this, the concept of ‘critical density’ needed to be put to the test. Both these ideas are related because they are concerned with the time it takes for objects to coalesce because of gravity.

In order to examine how stars may have formed from gas-clouds several premises are assumed as starting foundations. The first such premise is the average density of the Universe: which seems to be widely accepted as: 10^-19kg / km^3 or expressed as:


Density of the Universe
The age of the Universe is taken to be commonly accepted as being about 13 700 million years – and I can see no clear or obvious reason to contest that. However the estimates of the rate of expansion and the size of the Universe are quite different depending on where you look. The shape of the Universe is also an open question, it seems, so there is far more foundational labour to be undertaken before it can be tested how stars may coalesce at certain densities.

Strangely, many adherents of Einstein’s limit at the velocity of light have no problem with a Universe that has been expanding at a rate faster than light. It seems quite an obvious point of pure logic to me that if the Universe were expanding faster than the velocity of light, then the famous microwave radiation from the early Universe would not be able to reach us. If we were moving away from the origin at a speed faster than light, then nothing from that origin would ever be able to get here. After all, the first principle of any reasonable theory should be that it is at least logically consistent with its own principles.

But this process of expansion hinges on the role that the shape of the Universe plays in terms of the relationships between: time, radius, density, volume, and mass. The common error is to assume that the Universe is a 3d-sphere. This is similar to the assumption made by ancient people that the Earth is a flat surface. Instead we have to comprehend the tricky notion of a 4d-hypersphere.

It would be wise to realize that original notions of the Earth not being flat would have been very difficult to comprehend at first; even though nowadays such ideas are taken virtually for granted. A further vital realization I have to point out here is that the 4th dimension is not time, nor is it space-time, it is just another dimension of space. (Details of this conclusion are in previous chapters).

The shape of the Universe is a fairly recent issue, and for a long time most discussions on the matter had accepted that the Universe being 13.7 billion years old, had to be 13.7 billion light-years in either radius or diameter, and that it has been expanding no faster than the velocity of light. This would have the neat result that at half its current age, the density of the Universe would be 8 times greater – so long as the amount of matter was the same.

Now there are several ways of describing expansion rate: as an increase in distance (diameter) over time; or as a proportional increase in volume over time; or as the amount of 4-dimensional hyperspace filling up the hyper-balloon of the Universe – over time.

Some would have it that earlier expansion rates were fastest. A new idea is that expansion is fastest recently, even though for quite some time Hubble’s observations had been that the expansion was a direct relationship between distance and time (Ohanian p.337 Section D4). But if the expansion is consistently the same in terms of diameter over time, then this rate of increase must decrease proportional to volume over time.

It also needs to be considered that if the amount of 4d hyperspace inflating the Universe could be at a constant rate – equitable to energy – then the earliest change in diameter is greatest. None of the articles I have seen even broaches this subtle difference of description. Whether it is volume or diameter that is constant never seems to be considered – and none of those who claim alternating rates of expansion (that I have seen) seems to venture an actual formula as to how much this rate is changing.

So let us draw the analogy of a balloon inflating. If the amount of new air blown into a balloon flows at the same rate, then the early stages appear to inflate fastest, and the diameter increases less towards the latter stage. Of course this does not mean that actual expansion is slowing down in purely energy terms. But it is slowing down in linear-spatial terms. It will always carry on expanding – just at ever decreasing proportions.

The physical irony being that if the amount of air is analogous to the amount of energy required to expand the Universe, then we violate that most sacred of principles of physics: conservation of energy. In order for any expansion of the Universe to take place, new energy must be entering or altering the Universe all the time. But if the amount of new energy is increasing at the same rate, then at least we have something of the veneer of energy conservation.

But the problem is more nebulous than this because it seems to me that there are numerous basic misunderstandings taking place in most theories. The notion of gravity being curved space has been demonstrated as illogical in Chapter XXVIII for numerous quite different reasons. Simply put, if nothing travelling at the velocity of light can escape a black-hole – and if gravity travels at that velocity – then the black-hole can only give off zero gravity. Thus it can be seen how most theory blatantly contradicts its own principles. This is a calamitous error that has eluded every theorist for the last 100 years including a growing list of Nobel Prize winners.

But most discussions on expansion of the Universe take place under the false notion that if gravity can pull all the objects of the Universe together, then the Big Bang can be reversed. The role taken by the simple shape of orbital structures is something that has been entirely overlooked, because two objects in orbit around each other will never contact one another. Even the notions from General Relativity and Numerical Relativity that offer Post-Newtonian dynamics of inward spirals are almost always less than the rate of the expansion of the Universe.

The notion of a Critical Density beyond which the Universe collapses can quite easily be disproved. If this Critical Density is said to be 2x10^-17kg / km^3 then the Solar System is certainly more dense than this. And yet the rate of inwards spiral from General Relativity for the Earth and Sun is said by Hawking to be:

Hawking gravitational waves
‘Critical Density’ has not taken into account that gravity causes orbits to return to their origins. It only considers gravity that will cause impacts of bodies in radial terms – which is perpendicular to any potential orbital movements.

So let us consider the simplistic example that the expansion could be uniform – at the velocity of light, such that when it was 1.37 billion years old, the Universe was about 1000 times denser on average than it is now. The most obvious problem is that at this earlier time, the Universe was substantially more dense than the ‘Critical Density’. It does not matter what the rate of expansion is because at earlier times, it is going to be substantially denser than the Critical Density. (One way around this problem, would be if mass is entering the Universe with expansion.)

So this is always my strategy: If we apply the rigours required to construct an evolutionary algorithm, we nearly always find that we do not need to resort to any new empirical claims – that by assessing all the various claims for logical consistency the result is one working model, and numerous other models that contradict themselves.

Our chief tool is metaphysics. We must appreciate that there are categorically different ways as to how we acquire information. We can observe phenomena ourselves empirically; we can assess observations logically (math & computation), or we can acquire claims hermeneutically. This last method is the most devious, because it often disguises itself as one of the other two methods.

Hermeneutical information is that which we acquire from words or the accounts of other folk. History is evaluated almost entirely hermeneutically, and most internet research, library research, and scholastic examination, is simply hermeneutical. So when someone claims ‘Relativity has been proven empirically’, they would need to have actually done such an experiment themselves – because if they then reference an academic paper or website claiming empirical proof, then that is simply not empirical.

They would then need to also direct the reader how to perform such an experiment personally. If this is not possible, for whatever reasons, and they insist that we should accept their claim as being empirical, then they are certainly guilty of not understanding what the word ‘empirical’ actually means. Such a person would be guilty of esoteric belligerence: dogma.

Now often all the information we have access to is here-say, so it is not that Hermeneutics is bad or wrong. It is just often unreliable. But it does have the broadest scope. Empirical observation and logic are both slow and narrow. And we almost always have to use the Hermeneutical method as our first step before we can begin the arduous process of observation and measurement which philosophically is often called: Logical Positivism.

Now when empirical claims are beyond the reach of the ordinary person, we still have the powerful process of logic to be able to determine which accounts are internally reasonably self-consistent to their own claims. In this way, logic is the most vital method – because anybody can use it to see which claims are false even when they do not have access to the esoteric ‘empirical’ claims typically made by copy-paste theorists.

So let us get back to the physical Universe, and how it will be easily proved that a wide variety of other theories are illogical; except for Sum Theory. This is because nobody else seems to have applied the basic principle of Sums to those essential parameters of the Universe that one must be certain of, before computation can begin. And these are: density, mass, volume and radius. Inherent within these concepts is the shape of the Universe.


Page Back
Start Chapter
Next Page

This is an extract summary of Chapter XXX of the book: Flight Light and Spin
Download page for relativity simulation: algorithm orbit-gravity-sim-12.exe

The full chapter can be downloaded here: Sum-Theory.pdf
(5.5 mb, 57 pages, this pdf file is too big for chrome, use firefox)

List of: abbreviated short articles

. .

Relativity simulator