Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Subspace 2009b
8/14/2019 Subspace 2009b
The Great Void Which Is Unconditioned
(Subspace 2009)(c) 2009 by Clete Goffard
One: The Expanding Universe.
I.Ants on a Balloon, Both the Ant and the Balloon expand. II.The Fundamental Mass Unit
Hypothesis, A Cause of Mass? III.The Minkowski Coordinate System, There is No Common
Dimension of Time, The Special Theory of Relativity. IV.The Expanding Earth Theory.
[A Special Note: The view being presented herein is an alternative world view developed by
its author, and should not be taken as an exposition of 'legacy' physics. C.G.]
Ants On A Balloon.The idea of an expanding universe occurred to Edwin Hubble in the early 1920's, when he
examined 'nebula', faint smudges of distant light, with a newer and more powerful telescope at
Mt. Wilson, California. The smudges resolved into galactic shapes. He discovered from
interpreting their spectra that not only did the emission lines of atoms show a lower frequency, orred-ward shifting compared to closer light sources, but that the further away the galaxy was
estimated to be, the greater the red-ward shift. This was interpreted to mean that the galaxies were
moving away from one another like ants on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.
Georges Lemaitre proposed that cause of this expansion was that all matter and energy hadonce been concentrated in a "Primeval Atom," which exploded in a titanic "Big Bang."
The Big Bang theory did require modification as time went on. For one thing, subsequent
calculations showed that the expansion needed to be many times faster at the beginning than later,
and the "Inflationary model", which went through several changes, was born. Later it wasdiscovered that rather than slowing down as a result of gravity, the rate of expansion was
increasing.This highly unexpected result might be explained, it was supposed, by positing a
"dark" energy" that was pushing the galaxies apart.
All of this is mainly to explain the red-ward shifting of light coming from very distant sources.
The kind of expansion thought to be occurring has been called gauge invariant, because it
presumes that material objects retain the same scale. A commonly used analogy is that of ants on
an expanding balloon: the balloon inflates, and the ants (galaxies) move apart creating relative
space, but the ants remain at a the same size as a result of gravity.
But it is also a hypothesis of convenience, for if size or gauge, within the galaxy remains
constant, local physics do not have to be changed.
Both the Ant and the Balloon Expand.We propose that an entirely distinct kind of expansion, one we shall call universal gauge
expansion, in which the ant is expanding at the same rate as the balloon.* To make the analogy
more apt, we shall imagine that the ant drawn in ink. But in this kind of expansion, the galaxies
would not actually be moving apart, disregarding relative motions. Everything would simply be
getting bigger--not only the space between the galaxies, but the galaxies themselves, and even the
atoms within the galaxies. The ant would grow in size with the balloon.
This idea of a universe in which everything expands uniformly can be laid at the doorstep of
Roger Joseph Boscovich, a contemporary of Newton and Leibniz. Boscovich was a Jesuit, and
8/14/2019 Subspace 2009b
the Vatican's "science guy." In an exposition of his system (in which atoms were like points), he
said it was conceivable that the universe could expand and contract in size daily without our
being aware of it.
A simple analogy which ought to convince us that this could actually 'work,' is to imagine
ourselves as part of an image which is being enlarged or decreased by a zoom lens. Everything inthe image, all objects and the space between them, can be enlarged with the twist of the lens. The
relation of elements, one to the other within the image, does not change. We are a part of theimage being zoomed--a view the expansion from outside introduces a distortion.
Suppose our universe, without our being aware of it, expanded to twice its previous size.
Could we tell the difference? We'd probably notice it if the length of the second remained the
same. If we measured the speed of light we would find that it was only half of what we expected
it to be (since it had to travel twice as far).But if the zooming of space had been accompanied by
a zooming of time so that the second was also twice as long, the measurement would come out
Boscovich apparently did not develop the his speculations about expansion further (in which
case he would have had to deal with the time aspect), although the statement implies a
relationship between time and space which we call the gauge rule. A convenient rule-of-thumb is:
the bigger the clock, the slower it runs.
But the time used in the gauge rule is not measured by the standard clock of physics, wherewe assume that the number of standard seconds is the quantity of time, and as space increases,
the number of standard seconds increases proportionately.We are proposing that the length of the
In the gauge rule, if one deals with length as a fundamental unit which can increase ordecrease in size, then the fundamental unit of time, the second, can be imagined to expand and
contract, as well. In other words, the rate of change of length divided by the the rate of change of
time equals a constant. Since units of measurement are arbitrary, the constant may be set as c, the
observed speed of light.
Use of the gauge rule is restricted: one can't simply scale up size and expect time to be slower.
Something more fundamental is involved, and that something is the behavior of what we call the
"self-enclosed wave," a fundamental, pulsating, pattern, which we shall deal with in the next
section.Dewey B. Larson, an engineer, earlier developed what he called the Reciprocal System, in
which a relation quite similar to what we have called the gauge rule plays a pivotal part: the
concept of space (length) and time (seconds) as reciprocals of one another. Larson also conceived
of an expanding universe, but one consistent with the current (ant-on-a-balloon) view. And his
reciprocal system seems to be based on length as defined by the number of standard units, and
time as the number of standard seconds.Because he saw universal expansion as having magnitude
(speed) but no (actually an infinite number of) linear direction (s), he called it scalar, rather than
vector motion.* *
* Our personal inclination is to call it zoom expansion.* *The official site for Larson's system is: http://rstheory.org,Dr. Bruce Peret, proprietor.
II.The Fundamental Mass Unit Hypothesis.
We can measure space with a rule and time with a clock, apparently directly. But mass, a
property of matter, cannot be so measured; we measure instead resistance to acceleration, and
posit that some attribute of matter gives rise to the resistance.
But resistance to acceleration is a relation and not a something which can exist independently
of relation. Now one would think that in this case there must be a somethingness to mass, and that
this somethigness is involved in the relation. If it only exists as a relation, then what is its status
when it is not relating? If it can't be measured, in other words, does it exist? We prefer to deal
8/14/2019 Subspace 2009b
with material substance, then, as a persisting something which exists independently of relations,
one of the relations of which is mass.
It is a common truism that the the total rest mass of an object can be divided by dividing the
material in the object. Half of the loaf is about half the mass of the whole loaf. We can take the
division to the size of atoms, at which point we must either stop or break the atom up intosmaller parts. The atom has mass, and the parts of the atom, electrons, neutrons and protons, as
well as the "pieces" they are broken into. It seems that the atomic level is not the primary level oforganization, for below that are the elusive quarks.
Where does divisibility end? Does the final product of division, itself, have mass, or is mass a
relation created between parts at an even finer level? Fortunately, for the purposes of our
discussion, we do not need to know. What we shall do is to employ a working hypothesis, which
can be described in these terms:
There is a unit of materiality that we shall call the fundamental mass unit which is the smallest
(observable) amount of gravitational and inertial mass.Note that the fmu need not be an actual
particle--that's not important here--its merely the smallest, concrete, unit of mass to which we
have need to make reference.
Our purpose for positing the fmu is this. Physics, in considering mass as a fundamental
quantity, is defining mass in terms of relative amounts of mass. Relative amounts of mass can be
measured and compared.What we want to do is to explore relations the relations of mass as athing of itself, and the relations of that to other masses.
We can say that the proper mass of an object is the sum of the fmu's it contains: m=n(fmu).
For example, when Newton's apple fell, we can more properly say that gravity acted not on the
mass as a quantity, but upon each fmu individually. It is the individual fmu that is accelerated, andhence the accelerated speed of falling is not determined by