Revisiting the foundations of modern cosmology

Jzz

May 10, 2021
249
65
4,660
From the earliest times, humanity has turned its gaze to the heavens, searching for meaning in the vast celestial sphere. The ancients, through persistent observation, uncovered the regularity of planetary motions, leading to the profound idea of a cosmos governed by universal laws. This early understanding laid the foundation for modern astronomy, which has since revealed an even deeper and more astonishing truth: despite the vast distances that separate them, all celestial bodies seemingly share a common origin. This unity across the cosmos is a remarkable occurrence. The planets, stars, and distant galaxies, formed in different epochs and scattered across unimaginable expanses, are composed of the same elements, born from the same cosmic processes. This commonality suggests an intimate connection between all things in the universe, a relationship that extends beyond mere physical proximity.

For centuries, light was believed to be the only force capable of bridging the gulf between stars. Newton’s discovery of gravity expanded this view, revealing a force that binds celestial bodies across space. Later discoveries added electric and magnetic interactions to this cosmic interplay. Far from being isolated, the universe is a vast, dynamic system where energy flows ceaselessly, linking distant objects in ways once thought impossible. At the heart of this great exchange lies an elusive medium, the aether, once considered the fundamental fabric of space, enabling the transmission of forces across the void. Though its nature remains a mystery, one question persists: what is the true relationship between this medium and the matter scattered throughout the cosmos? The answer to this question may hold the key to understanding the deepest workings of the universe.

Today, we are inundated with an immense flow of data about the Universe, gathered from a vast array of sources—from the James Webb and Hubble Space Telescopes to ground-based observatories, radio telescopes, and specialized satellites. Yet, many of the foundational ideas that shape our understanding of the cosmos were conceived in an era when none of these advanced tools existed.

One of the most influential figures in shaping our early understanding of the universe was René Descartes—a philosopher and scientist whose ideas emerged in a time of limited observational data. Born in 1596 to Joachim Descartes, a Counsellor to the Parliament of Brittany, he initially pursued a military career. However, at the age of twenty-four, he experienced a profound intellectual awakening, modern psychiatrists may differ with this diagnosis calling it a nervous breakdown, nevertheless, this pivotal moment led him to abandon his military ambitions and devote himself entirely to philosophy and scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, perhaps as a result of his change of heart, Descartes suffered from an overweening ambition. His aim was the most ambitious that can be conceived; it was nothing less than to create from the beginning a complete system of human knowledge. In this he was almost predestined to fail. However, the sheer ambition of Descartes' vision, coupled with the boldness of its execution, ignited a new era of scientific thought unlike anything before it. Though his system eventually gave way to more refined and enduring theories, it was from the remnants of his ideas that later philosophers built the foundations of modern science.

Revisiting Descartes’ work today, it is remarkable to consider the depth of his insight, achieved with only the most meager empirical resources. Despite the absence of modern observational tools, his reasoning cut to the core of fundamental questions about the nature of matter and the structure of the cosmos — a framework that laid the groundwork for later scientific thought. Descartes regarded the world as an immense machine, operating by the motion and pressure of matter. " Give me matter and motion," he said, " and I will construct the universe." A great consequence of his system was the rejection of all forms of action at a distance ; he assumed that force cannot be communicated except by actual pressure or impact. It was this single statement that led to Descartes downfall, for in attempting to find a logical manner in which objects interacted at a distance he was drawn into an increasingly web of complications from which he could not extract himself. Despite this, his observation that Action at a Distance, cannot logically take place, is at the foundation of much of modern cosmology and even shaped Einstein's thoughts.

Since the sun interacts with the planets, in sending them light and heat and influencing their motions, it followed from Descartes' principle that interplanetary space must be a plenum, occupied by matter imperceptible to the touch but capable of serving as the vehicle of force and light. This conclusion in turn determined the view which he adopted on the all-important question of the nature of matter. Matter, in the Cartesian philosophy, is characterized not by impenetrability, or by any quality recognizable by the senses, but simply by extension ; extension constitutes matter, and matter constitutes space. The basis of all things is a primitive,, elementary, unique type of matter, boundless in extent and infinitely divisible. In the process of evolution of the universe three distinct forms of this matter have originated, corresponding respectively to the luminous matter of the sun, the transparent matter of interplanetary space, and the dense, opaque matter of the earth. "

In René Descartes' philosophy, matter is defined not by its physical properties like impenetrability, weight, or sensory qualities (such as color or texture). Instead, it is defined solely by its extension—meaning its occupation of space. This means that matter and space are fundamentally the same—since matter is nothing more than something extended in three-dimensional space. If one gives this idea due thought it is amazing and in a different form is the basis of much of science today. The basis of all existence is a single type of matter, which forms the fundamental building block of everything. As the universe evolved, this one fundamental matter took on three different forms: Luminous Matter: This is the radiant, energetic form of matter, associated with light and heat. Transparent Matter (of Interplanetary Space): This represents the subtle, invisible medium that fills space, which in Descartes' time was often conceived as an "ether" through which light and planetary motion were transmitted. Dense, Opaque Matter (of the Earth): This is the solid and tangible matter that forms planets, rocks, and objects we can see and touch.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
1,019
167
1,360
You stretch the definition of 'matter' to include space. Then we divide it into what we normally describe as EMR, space and matter. The prose is elegant (compared to my usual efforts) but where are we going with this?
 
Space is absence. Allowing mass and field to interact without impediment. An empty area for mass and field to move and occupy.

Time and length are cosmos pillars. Constants that all mass and field motion must obey. Time and length produce a product called velocity. A product, a result, not a constant value….. or principle. Or a force that sets time and length. If you measure it, these false suppositions will disappear.

There is Only one structure in this cosmos. All other structures are combinations(dipoles) of this one structure.

All of the periodic table comes from one entity(charge) and one handed(left and right) structure(a closed rotating helix).

The frequency of light is intermittence, with a duty cycle, not continuous oscillation. Only matter can vibrate. Mass rings. Like a bell. Light is not a vibration. It blinks.

My nervous breakdown is much more ordered.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
249
65
4,660
You stretch the definition of 'matter' to include space. Then we divide it into what we normally describe as EMR, space and matter. The prose is elegant (compared to my usual efforts) but where are we going with this?
Thank you Gibsense, what you say is true. The post has no real focus other than to illustrate what went into the foundations of modern Cosmology. What did people think of the Universe in the Sixteenth Century and how do those thoughts affect us today? The idea that 'matter' is an extension of space and vice-versa is not my idea but one of Rene Descartes founding principles arising from the idea that there can be no action at a distance. As to how true this is in a modern sense, I cannot say. However, it should be remembered that René Descartes revolutionized philosophy and science by introducing Cartesian coordinates, which unified algebra and geometry, laying the foundation for modern mathematics. He also championed the cause of rationalism, emphasizing doubt and logical reasoning as the basis of knowledge. "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am).
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
249
65
4,660
Space is absence. Allowing mass and field to interact without impediment. An empty area for mass and field to move and occupy.
Thank you classical motion, this is exactly the argument that Nikolai Tesla used in his argument against Einstein: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
Time and length are cosmos pillars. Constants that all mass and field motion must obey. Time and length produce a product called velocity. A product, a result, not a constant value….. or principle. Or a force that sets time and length. If you measure it, these false suppositions will disappear.
This is where the problem lies. In actual fact, according to special relativity, time and length are not absolute cosmic pillars but relative quantities that change depending on the observer’s motion, as shown in special relativity. According to the same theory, velocity is not just a passive product but a fundamental measure influenced by spacetime structure. This is all Einstein of course, but while it may make wonderful verse, there is a ton of evidence against the idea that time dilates and lengths contract just to keep the speed of light constant for all observers.
 
I’m predicting that if they ever measure light, only local light is constant and the light from every other star will have a different velocity. And those velocities from all around us, will give us a true idea of our velocity. Our still or absolute speed. And true direction. All those different speeds and directions….. come from our speed and direction. That’s why we can measure it.

Once they learn what light is and properly measure it, the EM we detect will have much more accurate information in it. High star/galaxy velocities and space expansion redshift will be dismissed.

And this cosmos will turn much older. And much larger.

Time and distance, and velocity from them, will be reset to normal.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
249
65
4,660
I’m predicting that if they ever measure light, only local light is constant and the light from every other star will have a different velocity. And those velocities from all around us, will give us a true idea of our velocity. Our still or absolute speed. And true direction. All those different speeds and directions….. come from our speed and direction. That’s why we can measure it.

Once they learn what light is and properly measure it, the EM we detect will have much more accurate information in it. High star/galaxy velocities and space expansion redshift will be dismissed.

And this cosmos will turn much older. And much larger.

Time and distance, and velocity from them, will be reset to normal.
Fine, but first let us examine the problems arising out of special relativity:

For instance, why is the speed of light the sole factor that causes time to dilate and space to contract, what about radio-waves for instance? Do radio-waves also cause time to dilate and length to contract? Or take the case where light is travelling through a different medium than the vacuum? Why don't length's contract and time experience dilation in such circumstances. Does this mean that if light is travelling through water, take one end of an Olympic sized swimming pool to the other end, that the speed of light is still constant for all observers? If not why is this so, if on the other hand the speed of light is constant for all observers even when it is travelling through a medium, what do the words the speed of light is constant for all observers when travelling through a vacuum denote? Further, remember that the speed of light can be broken when it is travelling through other substances. In my opinion Descartes was right. Space is filled with a plenum or 'aether' and it is this aether that governs the speed of light. This follows from the classical mechanics finding that the speed of a wave, any wave be it a seismic wave resulting in an earthquake, or a sound wave, or a wave travelling down a rope: its speed will remain constant, regardless of the motion, towards or against or at an angle, of an observer, providing the medium itself does not change.
 
Jan 2, 2024
1,019
167
1,360
For instance, why is the speed of light the sole factor that causes time to dilate and space to contract, what about radio-waves for instance? Do radio-waves also cause time to dilate and length to contract?
You are holding the wrong end of the stick. All Electromagnetic radiation (Gamma/ultraviolet/light/microwave/radio waves) exhibit a characteristic of our universe whereby they always travel at c (the speed of light).
There are some circumstances whereby they appear to move more slowly when travelling through areas of mass, but this is due to a complex time delay (of absorption and release of the photons)

The "complex time delay" (due to absorption and re-emission) is a good way to explain this phenomenon. However, it is worth noting that the concept can sometimes be described more broadly as the electromagnetic wave's energy interacting with the structure of the material.

Time dilation arises from speed and the shape of space in 4 dimensions.
 
Jan 2, 2024
1,019
167
1,360
Space is absence
I disagree. Within our universe space has many characteristics that set it apart from "nothing".

  • Space-Time: According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space and time are interconnected as a four-dimensional "fabric." This fabric can be bent, warped, and stretched by the presence of mass and energy, resulting in gravity.
  • Quantum Fields: Even in what we consider "empty" space, quantum fields exist. These fields fluctuate constantly, giving rise to virtual particles that pop in and out of existence.
  • Cosmological Role: The universe expands. It's not just a passive backdrop; it's actively growing.
  • Energy and Vacuum: Space has measurable properties like vacuum energy (often associated with dark energy) and a baseline level of activity due to quantum mechanics.
  • Physical Medium for Forces: Space is the medium through which forces like electromagnetism propagate. For example, electromagnetic waves travel through space alone.
  • Do you really think something can exist in nothing (absence)? Nothing means no volume, no place, no existence.
 
I don’t think there is a space time or a need for it. I believe that all properties, even time and length, dimension, come from matter. Not space.

Space quantum fields are just static. Popping in and out is just temporary superposition of static. EM traveling thru emptiness. It mats and quilts as it flies.

Universe expansion is just an illusion due to a miss-understanding of light.

Energy and vacuum…. again static.

Field is the medium of force. Except for gravity. A gravity field has not been detected. It might be different from what we think as force. Or what we think as field.

Emptiness has an infinite volume. And has no volume. Space only has what you give it. It gives us distance between objects. Or distance from objects. An empty length.

Space is the absence of entity and property. The static and all other EM comes from mass. That static can not be put back together as mass. It is lost mass. And it all fades. Out into the emptiness of space. Space is an empty hole. A hole that can not hold.

This is just my opinion, not any part of modern theory. I never found any who agreed with it.

If you believe that space is an entity, then so be it for your reality. Realities are like DNA.

I only attempt to describe physicality. Mass and energy. Not the primordial source or purpose of it. Only what I believe it to be. From my reading and playing with it.

I have no idea of why. I only suppose how. And at how neat and simple it is. For my pointy little head.

Having just one mystery, gravity, is a lot better than having all the others.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
249
65
4,660
Field is the medium of force. Except for gravity. A gravity field has not been detected. It might be different from what we think as force. Or what we think as field.
The notion that things may be different from what was conjectured is a start. For instance "Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND)" states that dark matter might be very low energy relic photons left over from the Big Bang. The reasoning is as follows. Today it has been established that bound electrons emit and absorb photons at rates of hundreds of trillions of hertz, there is almost a consensus that the formation of matter must have been accompanied by light. Given the ratio of hundreds of trillions of photons per second for every particle that was formed, in a process that went on for hundreds of thousands of years, the question arises, "what happened to all these photons?" Formed in innumerable numbers, they could not have passed over the edge of the Universe, since by definition no such thing exists. The most probable solution is that these photons, given nowhere to go accumulated within the nascent Universe, occupying every part of it. All photons according to (AND) theory are formed and emitted directly by electrons, this means that photons have an electric nature and are therefore infinitesimal electric dipoles that can orient in the direction of emission of a real photon. As the early Universe expanded, these photons expanded with it, eventually due to the expansion of the Universe, these photons (electric dipoles) lost so much energy that they were left with an individual energy of only 10^-51 J, transitioning from 'real' photons to 'virtual' photons. They permeate every part of the Universe including all matter and are more or less stationary in space but possess 360 degrees of freedom. When a real photon is emitted the virtual photons in its path line up in its direction forming a line whose ends rest on the shoulders of infinity. It is the energy of the real photon that travels along the line of aligned virtual photons and not the photon itself. Now what about gravity. According to (AND) theory and proven by the Lamb Shift experiment. Bound photons are constantly emitting and absorbing 'virtual' photons. In such a case, the emission of a virtual photon by a bound electron, (which takes place in 10^-16 secs or less) results in the extremely brief alignment of the virtual photon field into a line of force, but in this case, unlike in the case of light, conveys no energy. Instead, this brief alignment or tensioning of the virtual photon aether, represents a line forming the shortest distance between two points. If the line of force falls on another object, reciprocal lines of force are formed, making gravitation an always attractive force. If you are interested in reading more kindly read my paper ID SR25308182354. "Gravity according to AND theory." Think of what this means (AND) theory holds that the virtual photon field is none other than dark matter. If this is the case, it beautifully explains the gravitational effects of dark matter, acting across the vast galactic spaces and lending form to the Universe.
 

Latest posts