Wednesday, November 20, 2002

The Expansion of the Universe

If space is expanding, why do scientists still talk about a big bang? The big bang theory said that something exploded into a space that was already there to receive that which was exploding. Now they believe space is created along with the exploding matter.

But the big bang isn't needed anymore if space itself is expanding. The objects in the universe could have come into existence separately, like crops in a field, or whatever. They all still would be moving apart from each other if space does the job of expansion.

A Natural Cycle of Energy

- and beyond the Universe

When it's snowing on a not so cold day, we can se the snowflakes fall to the ground as big chrystals, forming a wet sheet. After a while the flakes, or parts of them, melt to water, forming water-spots, later to unite into a small pond.

The frosen water therebye creates its own space, into which it expands.
I think this is how the universe is growing. Light emits from all stars in all directions constantly. Along the way the photons get distorted and lose some of their "density", and their "melted" energy then forms the surrounding, expanding space.

Take away the energy completely, and you take away space. But as that's not possible in reality, surrounding space-energy must fill the gap, therebye creating the effect of gravity. Objects move closer to each other because the distance between them is narrowed by their "hunger" for energy.

Where does the energy go? It goes into the objects, adding to their radiation of magnetic fields or light emitment. It then is cast out into the energy-ocean again. Therebye we have a natural cycle of light.

That's the "easy" part. The hard part would be to explain into what the emitted energy goes beyond the borders of the universe. How can something expand into nothing?

I'll try. Could this nothing be a virtual reality, a thought-frame into which the energy can "materialize"?

It should be something like that, because when one think about the edge of the Universe, one must conclude that a universe isn't possible.

The more I think about what's behind the edge, the more unreal it all seems. The universe can't be limited, because if there's nothing outside of it, universe is all. And yet, if it has a volume, it can't be unlimited.

So, the only solution would be that the Universe couldn't have come to existense, unless through a Creator, who by His mind shapes the room for it to enter.

Without His creative mind, expanding into nothingness wouldn't be possible. Nothing can go into nothing, unless nothing is something after all. And that something would be the virtual, or spiritual, thought-frame of God.

Monday, July 1, 2002

Space is Something

"AETHER" hasn't been shown to exist. But doesn't the fact that one can travel through "it" show that it exists? You can't travel through nothing. If we had a "nothing" between us and a star, we would see nothing but darkness (or more likely, be sucked closer to the star).

Even in relativity, gravity is said to be bending space. Then, as I understand it, space must consist of something.

There are distances in space. So there must be volume. And volume usually is a measure of fluids and similar things. If the distances were "nothing", then there would be no distances.

So, is the thought of space as a vacuum really making sence?

If the universe is expanding, is it because the objects are coming out from a big bang, or is it because space is moving them apart? If the first is true, I think that will be no hinder for the objects to consume space around them, while traveling outwards.

If I use the sea as a picture again, it would be like waves from a (very big) dive, moving outwards, while creeks still are draining the sea.

If there is new space added all the time, wouldn't that be something like the cosmological constant? I have no idea what kind of substance, if any, Einstein meant by that. But in my mind it would be like a cosmic "rain", coming from "above", into the electro-ocean.

I think of space fluid as the lowest possible form of energy - the fluidic, transparent state. Then there are radio- and light-waves, and after that matter. Matter would be the "frosen" state of the space fluid.

I believe there are similarities between everything in the universe.

Below the space fluid there would be vacuum. But because that state is impossible to uphold, just as it's impossible to make a hole in the ocean, the "surface" of space will, and must, be narrowed, all across.

Water can be deformed in shape, but not in state, because then it starts to boil or freeze. So if the space-ocean was drained, it's volume would shrink through the whole universe. It wouldn't transform into a lower density because there is no lower state. And therefore it couldn't be "streched". But reshaped, yes.

I know that Newton said something similar to this, and that Einstein showed it to be wrong. And who would question Albert Einstein? Still, to me it sounds more logic that gravity is consuming space, than bending it.

The reason that makes me think like this, is that I don't believe in a "nothing". Nothing is nothing, therefore it can't exist. You can't be in a nothing, you can't travel in it, mass can't expand in it, time can't pass in it. Space must be something, and as distances in it are measurable, while the substance of it isn't (yet), it would be logic to asume it's the lowest possible form, or state, of energy (something like the cosmic background radiation).

And perhaps everything else is created of, and from, this energy.

The only thing that actually exists, is energy. All other things, light, time, space and gravity, are different moods of energy. Then what is energy? Where did it come from? As I have understood, it is undestroyable, and therefore eternal - without beginning and end. Energy is all there is - period.

Very enlightening, one could say.

A quote from a scientific website: "It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light. Light is more fundamental than time and space."

A very biblical standpoint. As a Christian, I fully agree.

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

The Electro-Ocean

I think that gravitation is caused by the "disappearance" of the local space. In my view, space is not a real vacuum, but a room filled with a thin, not yet measurable, "fluidic" force-field, which is a conductor for light and electro-waves. Therefore I like to call it the "electro-ocean".

Real vacuum can't be created, because the spacefluid will fill the gap immediately. When a body, with it's mass, is present in space, it "sucks" up the energy around it, and the rest of space is dragged inwards, filling the vacuum. Thus, objects in space move closer to each other - not because they attract each other, but because the distance between them is narrowed.

If the space-fluid, or medium, is not elastic, this "gravity"-pull will move with infinite speed through the whole Universe. If space is elastic, gravity moves in a slower speed.

Since no one has been able to detect gravitation waves, I guess it's because the spacefluid can't be stretched. It's density is constant, because of a one-state nature.

This perhaps could be likened with draining a sea. No matter how small amount of water you tap from it, the whole sea's surface will sink. It's not just the surrounding area that will sink, but the whole sea.

So, gravitation is draining the electro-ocean, and every "floating" object in it has to follow. And every decrease would be felt through all the Universe, if one were able to detect it.

Wouldn't this save Einstein's theory, and yet allow information to travel "faster" than light? Shortening space doesn't change the speed of the traveler, it only changes the length of the travel.

Saturday, April 27, 2002

An Illuminated World

What are angels but glorified beings from another planet? Jesus has told us that we are going to be like them after the resurrection. Then they probably were like us, before THEIR resurrection.

We must leave the medieval conception of heaven and the spiritual world behind. Science has confirmed what heaven is. Heaven is space, with all of its fantastic galaxies, nebulas, stars and planets.

Jesus was resurrected not as a spirit only, but in a physical body. And a physical body requires a psysical room to live in. Jesus is not in some "other" dimension, he's living on a planet, which is called the Mountain of God, and where the Paradise is.

There are some ideas resembling this in New Age, but none of them are fully right. They have evolved because most christians are stuck in old traditions and haven't read the Bible as it is. And if we don't speak, others will.

Of course Ezekiel is describing a sort of space-ship. The angels of God are using such crafts, as are the angels of the enemy. This is seen in many Scriptures.

The state of things in Paradise is glorified, that is, the light of God is illuminating everything. That is why Jesus could walk through closed doors after His resurrection. Still he ate, he had scars left from the cross, and the disciples could touch and feel his body as any human body.

Jesus also breathed, which tells us he still has loungues. So such is life in heaven, at the Holy Mountain of God.

This planet, the Earth, is a fallen Paradise. It was in heaven from the beginning, but "fell out" because of Adam's sin. But you can still see the remnants of Paradise here. This world was perfect from the start, so there can't be another heaven at a higher level of creation-quality. That which is perfect is perfect, and so, a paradise is a planet where there is no sin and no death.

Such is the plan of God, and we can all be a part of it through Jesus, Son of God and son of Man.