It's 7 am. Better jot this down in rough before I forget it. It's based on the contents of a dream, so here geos.
The universe is moving all the time. Yeah, we know this. No, not universal expansion. But localised electromagnetic radiation. Yeah, but we've been through this before, there is no ether. What I mean by 'ether' is a set of point masses moving through a medium. It's not that sort of understood (and heavily refuted) Newtonian ether. It's the way the universe works. Says who? Scientists? I think not.
Well... in the last couple days or so, I've been doing some "philosophy of science" reading. Yeah, me back on the science books like a bad habit I kicked in high school. Never again, I promised, I'm a t-totaller, not one formula has passed my forebrain since.
But the Philosophy of Science is interesting. It says why scientists are full of shit. Well, they're not really full of shit - they have NO IDEA what they're full of. They can never know. And they will always only ever assume. That they know something like the contents of a human is illogical for them. They know the sun will rise every morning, so they use Inductive Logic to suggest that's the way it will always be. They have data which they can record and analyse and extrapolate a curve from. They have never seen an electron - only its trace through bubble chambers - this is akin to never having seen a nail being hammered into a wall by a big hairy armed man. Modern science can only record the vectors and the forces at work around the spacetime of the nail. They wouldn't know what the wall was made of, nor the nail, nor would they be able to deduce the structure of the arm that's holding the hammer, nor whether it were a hairy male arm or a less-hairy female arm.
Think of a wooden house (let's use a box house like a shed) built by hammering these 'nails' into this 'wood'. By registering the 'hit's on the nails, their direction and strength, you can say temporally when the house was built and you can see structurally where the forces were exerted (it would even look like a box of force activity). But you'd have come nowhere near finding out the cause of the hammering or when it would happen again.
And that's how it is for the whole of science.
Deductive reasoning means you've looked at all the options, all the factors, catalogued them, compared them and come to a conclusion. But THE WHOLE OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY is not about this. It's about selective evidence to support Inductive Reasoning (that's guesswork, to you and me)
Let the world know, SCIENCE IS A FRAUD.
So, I'm now lots more confident in applying this inductive reasoning to my idea of the Universe, after all, it works within their own framework, why shouldn't it work within mine. It occurred to me last night before I dozed off, isn’t that always the way, that a the Universe is moving all the time. I don’t mean globally, as in Big Bang Expansion, I’ve never really got on very well with the idea of the Big Bang creation of spacetime idea. I have a theory called Universal Equilibrium.
In this theory, the universe is settling debts, it does this at the frequency and speed of eletromagnetic radiation or c (Einstein’s famous speed of light). This is the fastest that any local transaction can be resolved – it’s not about something moving through some ether, it’s about the spacetime itself shuffling around until it’s happy that all is well and equalised based on local stresses and point masses. The universe doesn’t “know” there’s an imbalance, it just fills one in when it finds it. The classic example of this is the light bulb. The tungsten filament is electrified, locally that makes an imbalance, Universal Equilibrium fills in the imbalance at c, repeat for further localities of spacetime around the electrified tungsten filament so that a wave of light “appears” to flow out (when actually the universe is jumping in towards the source).
By doing this, we see that we have a very complex but beautifully logical reason for what a photon is. The question then arises, can we have photons of any ‘size’? Well, yes, of course we can. Based on the electromagnetic interaction of lots of atoms and molecules, in say a star, we can say that an imbalance is generated and Universal Equilibrium zooms in to fill the gap - a Gravity Photon is generated. This Gravity Photon is resolved at the speed of light, of course, the universe can’t move any faster. A Gravity Photon would seem to swell out from the planet like light belting out of a torch – even though the universe is actually rushing in to sort out the imbalance.
But it goes even deeper than this.
There was structure BEFORE there was matter. Structure and tension allowed matter to ‘form’ or condense out of its stresses. This way another axiom (that of connected action) can take place in our logic model of the universe. Take two planets in space. How can they exert a force on each other. It has been proven time and time again that there is no gravity force within an ‘atom’. Or at least it hasn’t been found (hence the invention of string theory to try to find it). Universal Equilibrium says that the structure that made the stresses of the universe first made the environment of the matter – the stars the planets came from were already connected by the supergravity structures that helped form the universe we see today. The stars and therefore their gravitationally held planets were always connected. Part of the same environment.
There truly is no other way to look at the universe other than this holistic approach. So, scientists, get your noses up from your Planck lengths and see the universe as it really is. Look globally for stresses that resolve local imbalance and find the key to the future of space travel.
For example: imagine a man-sized photon...