Immaterial Side of Energy
IMMATERIAL SIDE OF ENERGY
1. Mathematics is a pure science________________3
2. Criticism of the Western astrophysics________6
3. Explanation of the nature of gravity_________23
4. Black hole___________________________________35
5. Solution of the cosmological problem by
MATHEMATICS IS A PURE SCIENCE
And the more I reflect, the more two things fill my soul with ever new wonder
and increasing awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
German thinker Immanuel Kant
The whole world with its diversity we can bring down to the structure of a single atom and to stop further debates and discussions. Indeed, if we look through a powerful microscope, the diversity of nature will turn into protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. Modern science is replete with various theories trying to explain the essence of the Universe and the cause of its existence.
In one case a new theory replaces the old one; in another – confirms traditionally recognized previous theories. It is important not to get lost in such a huge array of information. In this work we will review the main principles on which rests nature and its laws, which will give you an opportunity to understand the consistency of different theories on your own.
In the days of Ancient Greece, 5 - 3 centuries B.C. there were formed three schools giving different interpretations of the World. The founders of those branches in philosophy are Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus.
Plato was a supporter of the divine origin of the World. His point of view was later monopolized by the Christian Church. The most striking representatives of the divine idea are Leibniz, Wolf, the Christian Church.
Aristotle tried to give a logical explanation of the World. The most striking representatives of that movement are Einstein, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking, who are considered to be the brightest representatives of the modern astrophysics.
Epicurus was the founder of the school that advocated only the empirical interpretation of the World. He based his arguments solely on the laws of nature. His followers can be considered Lucretius, Newton and Kant. The basic principles of his philosophy are the following:
1. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing comes down to nothing. Matter is constant and only its form is variable.
2. Vacuum abhors emptiness. It always acts on the matter trying to be filled with it.
Representatives of the divine and the logic movements, except the empirical one, were in search of the Prime Mover. Basing their arguments on Nature, they came to their conclusions of the ideas that went beyond any possible experience. Religion and astrophysics try to prove their views through metaphysics. Further we will consider in detail practical possibilities of metaphysics.
At all times, there has been one prominant idea of the origin of the World. Depending on what kind of ideology were prevalent in society, on that side was an overweight in the views. In the past the religious idea was a predominant one, but now astrophysical interpretation of the Universe is accepted by the majority.
Religious and astrophysical ideas can neither be proved nor disproved. It goes without saying, that we cannot consider as a material object neither the Creator of the World nor the Big Bang. In the first case, the material world confirms the existence of the idea of its Creator; in the second case, the moving stars and planets provide food for the idea of the Big Bang. We write "idea" rather than "theory" because a theory may be proved by empirical arguments, but transcendental ideas are impossible to prove. We will never be able to watch the Big Bang as a phenomenon. Although it may be in the cause and effect sequence of the changing Universe, yet it is not possible for us to consider it as a natural phenomenon. We can think of it only as an idea basing our conclusions on the available physical data. We cannot be 100 % sure that the Big Bang was such an event as astrophysics dipict it to us, since there is no such an available phenomenon in Nature.
In this paper we will retain ourselves exclusively within the boundaries of nature. We believe that it is the only way to resolve the cosmological question.
Science has given us answers to almost all the questions concerning our Universe. But it is not so easy, even for science, to provide answers to the following questions:
1. How big is the Universe?
2. Did the Universe have a beginning, or it has always existed?
3. Is everything in the Universe that happens conforms solely to the laws of nature or is there Divine intervention?
To the above questions metaphysics (astrophysics and theology) give satisfactory answers. Unfortunately, the theories, that they protect, can neither be confirmed nor refuted. Those theories deal with transcendental ideas that are above Nature, out of reach of any experience. Science is based only on the material, what is outside Nature is a metaphysical idea that one can only believe or not believe. We have left metaphysics alone and based our arguments solely on pure physics and applied logic.
A great number of people are accustomed to accept the scientific ideas, backed up by mathematical formulas, for granted. Complex mathematical calculations make thinkers insignificant in the face of modern science. However, some cosmological ideas, proposed by many mathematicians that the modern scientific world considers archaic, were also supported by the excellent formulas.
What kind of secret lurks behind all this? Has not time arrived for mathematics to share its leading position in cosmology with a critical philosophy? Is mathematics able to explain the Universe without philosophy?
Mathematics is an exact science, and it does not tolerate mistakes; only ideas can be wrong that are submitted to its review. Mathematics is our language by which we interpret nature and turn information about it into more understandable figures and formulas that extend our practical ability.
Among billions of tree leaves in the world, there are no even two absolutely similar ones. However, the leaves are not separate objects and we cannot ascribe to the an absolute number: they are parts of the trees. And even the trees are a part of nature. Among billions of molecules that make up a single leaf, there are, probably, no absolutely similar molecules, since with the help of their difference in electronic charges, they attract each other by giving away, or acquiring a certain amount of charge. Consequently, our determination of a concept of a separate entity stops there, where we ascribe general characteristics to a group of objects, based on approximately similar properties. It means that numbers, representing separate objects, exist only in our head, so it is pointless to look for mathematics in nature.
Mathematics is a pure science, it deals with abstract units and only in experience, for example, in physics, chemistry, etc. it is materialized. That's why math is so important, without its application even the deepest thoughts can remain forever in the realm of ideas.
Some astrophysics tend to overuse mathematics in order to impress others that their ideas are right. Unfortunately, mathematics cannot verify the ideas, however, it can clarify them. For example, in the recent past phisics believed that an atom has a number of electrons around itself that orbit the nucleus. Mathematics was applied successfully and phisics were able to use energy of the atom. Later, when technological innovations allowed physicists to see a real atom, they observed a completely different image: there was a nucleus surrounded by an electron cloud. This example demonstrates that mathematics explains the amount and relation of an entity parts or its relation to other entities, which allows us to use it for practical purposes, although we may not know the true nature of a phenomenon.
All phenomena of nature consist of matter, which are endowed by energy with a certain mass. In other words, the quality of matter is a manifestation of a certain amount of energy.
Intensity of natural forces is constantly changing. In other words, there are no perfect counterbalancing forces: the Nature is always off balance. But some changes occur at the molecular and even atomic level and in experimental physics we can ignore them: they do not affect a practical experiment to a substantial degree. This means that the laws of physics are not absolute – they are relative.
The question arises: relative to what, if everything in nature is relative?
The laws of physics are relative to our mind. This explains the fact that the laws of logic are strikingly coincide with the laws of nature.
Let's take a look at Newton's first law.
"Every body continues in state of rest or uniform and rectilinear movement, while and as it is not compelled by forces applied to change this condition".
First, a body or a material point, as modern physics interpret it, can never be in an absolute state of rest or rectilinear motion, no matter whatever frame of reference we use relative to which we do the calculations, because the body is constantly acted upon by external and internal forces.
Second, modern physics try to add adjustments to Newton's laws, which only make them easier to understand, but they do not change their essence. It is important to understand that Newton thought like a philosopher and tried to formulate just abstract ideas, to which we compare a practical result. Even if modern physics have introduced the postulate of the existence of different reference frames, it is not in their power to change the very essence of the law, i.e. to prove that a material point can be in a state of absolute rest or rectilinear motion relative to any reference system.
In other words, the laws of mechanics are Newton's ideas in relation to which all measurements are within the uncertainty principle, that is, they never fully coincide with those ideas.
CRITICISM OF THE WESTERN ASTROPHYSICS
Some of the latest theories explaining the nature of gravity are contrary to both logical and empirical principles. A recent development of the idea of existence of dark matter - something invisible and very heavy, which is the cause of gravity and keeps the Universe together - is nothing but a new scientific hypothesis that will never become reality.
Let's once and for all clarify the situation regarding dark matter. Ordinary matter has a negative or positive charge, which is only a difference of the same charge existing in nature or the potential difference of terminals.
Dark matter, according to some astrophysicists, has a charge opposite to that existing in nature.
Einstein proved that matter and energy are identical concepts, E=mc2; but dark matter needs to have formula E=-mc2. Taking into account the fact that the charge either exists or does not exist, then dark matter, in this case, does not only have any charge at all, but even the degree of its non-existence is less than zero, that is, less than nothing.
In accordance with the above-mentioned statement dark matter can be described as something that has "nothing" in sub-zero degree in its composition. Such metaphysical statements may be the greatest absurdity that has ever been discussed in scientific circles.
Imagine a normal atom, which is surrounded by a cloud of electrons; now imagine the atom of dark matter, which has a charge opposite to the one existing in nature; this means that the atom of dark matter surrounded by something that's even less than nothing. We want to remind some astrophysics that nothing can be less than nothing.
The String Theory, which is worth mentioning here, we consider as a mathematical abstraction and idealization.
Let's list the basic principles on which rests this fantastic theory:
1. Graviton – a subatomic particle responsible for gravity - has not been detected yet.
2. Vibrating strings of energy and six dimensions, in which they vibrate - have not been detected yet.
3. Parallel universes – have not been detected yet.
The above facts demonstrate that the String Theory is built purely on ideas.
This trick is not valid in science. Theories in pure physics may be formed only on empirical and logical principles. In other words, they should be based on available data, not on empty ideas.
The first person, who developed the ability to think logically, thought that Earth is the whole world. Later he realized that the planet Earth is one of the planets of the Solar System. It turned out later that the Solar System is part of the galaxy Milky Way, and there are a lot of such galaxies like ours in the Universe. All of the above discoveries have been made within the immanent or possible experience. Just look at the starry sky and it becomes clear that the Universe has always been open for research, we just couldn't understand it at the level at which we understand it today.
However, the parallel universes, whether they exist or not we cannot know and will never know, because the idea of their existence transcends not only any possible experience, but also the boundaries of the transcendental ideas, and can be considered as a fruit of pure fantasy.
The idea of an infinite universe is another example of transcendental illusion. In fact, the Universe is a whole, but not a quantitative one, because by using more advanced telescopes we find more and more galaxies and their number will only grow, eventually some of them will disappear, some will appear. The Universe is a dynamic entity, and it is constantly changing.
The distance from Earth to the nearest star Proxima Centauri is approximately 4.24 light years. We see this star in the form, in which it existed more than 4 years ago. The nearest galaxy to us is Andromeda. It is located at a distance of 2.5 million light-years away from us. We don't know what it looks like today, because we see it in the form, in which it existed 2.5 million years ago. Some of the galaxies that are several billion light-years away from us, may already have been extinguished, dispersed by black holes or have merged with other galaxies. The visible picture of the Universe shows us not what it actually looks like; we just see the image of what it shows us.
It is impossible for us to see also an image of the Universe in the span of a certain time lag, because every star, every galaxy and every star in any galaxy is located from us at different distances and presented to us as existing in different time periods.
Unfortunately, the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s; in order to see the Universe as it is, the speed of light should be at least ten or more billions of "light-years" for a second. It is impossible to see the Universe as it is – it just transcends any possible experience. The Universe will always exist for us as a phenomenon – endless and mysterious.
For example, if someone became very small and got into the human body for the purpose of recalculation of all cells of the body, he would not be able to complete the synthesis of the whole, even if he continued his job for a billion years. Moreover, during the counting old cells would die and new ones would be generated. His zeal could go on to infinity, and the whole process could never be completed, but this does not mean that the human body is not a whole. It is a dynamic whole, and the ever-continuing process of counting of cells, in the example above, can give us the illusion of infinity. This example is given only as a speculation.
However, regarding quantum communication in the Universe, members of the String Theory are partially right.
There are two types of communication in the Universe:
2. Quantum link.
Gravity binds the Universe by vacuum. This type of connection can be called mechanical. Quantum communication is electromagnetic radiation, which was mistaken for residual radiation coming from the Big Bang. In fact, it comes from the stars and galaxies that surround the planet Earth. Electromagnetic radiation is the light that comes to us from space.
Mathematics represents infinity as a constantly progressing line. There is no the biggest number, more and more units can be added to it.
Although we are not able to complete the synthesis of all objects in the Universe, nevertheless we can think about it as a whole, no matter how big it is. However, mathematics shows us that the Universe is bigger than it actually is, that is, bigger than itself – which is impossible.
The conclusion: the Universe must be limited. The question immediately arises: what it is limited with? In this case, we can assume that it is limited by empty space. But empty space does not have anything in itself, even a speck of dust that could become a point of relation to it of the Universe. This means that the Universe is limited by nothing, that is, it is unlimited. This node cannot be cut, if we continue to separate space from objects.
Some people mistakenly believe that there is infinite space, which include the limited Universe. However, we strongly maintain that infinite space is only a figment of our imagination.
Any cosmic body with its enclosing vacuum constitutes a single system. Matter cannot exist without vacuum; equally, vacuum cannot exist without matter, one is the complement of the other.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, a French naturalist of the 19th century, explained the condensation of cosmic matter in one place by thinning of it elsewhere.
Albert Einstein made a serious mistake.
He argued that space and time form a four dimensional component, which is responsible for gravity. According to his theory space and time are something tangible.
Space and time do not exist by themselves independently of objects. Separately from matter, in complete emptiness, distance and change cannot be detected. Therefore space and time are relations of our perception of objects of experience.
In this case, we can say that in the practical interests of experimental physics we must consider space and time as physical units, but we cannot say that space and time have real existence outside our mind.
Let us consider a difference between concepts “substance” and “matter”. Substance is everything that has mass. Substance may not consist of atoms. This concept covers any kind of particles. Matter is substance that consists of atoms.
Everything that exists - exists as substance. For example, a shadow is absence of light, not the presence of something material. In the same way vacuum is absence of matter, rather than the presence of a certain space. We have a notion of space or rather intuition, but we don't have the object of space. It is the empty concept without an object. So space and time are merely relations between objects.
The Universe is not a numerical entity, but rather a dynamic one, and it is as not unlimited as well as not limited. For example, every phenomenon of nature is limited by other phenomena. The Universe, as a whole consisting of all phenomena, must be a limited entity. But, on the other hand, if the Universe includes all the phenomena and always takes all places, then what it can be limited with?
M – Theory and the String Theory can be considered only as a figment of imagination. Dear Steven Hawking as a physicist should know that nothing comes from nothing, and that the total amount of energy doe not equal zero, as he mistakenly believes. Zero results in zero. Absolute zero does not exist in nature. This is a purely mathematical concept. The mere fact that nature exists is enough to give us a hint that it is more than zero. Absolute zero is only possible in case of absolute vacuum and total absence of matter. Of course, such state of things does not belong in nature. The total amount of energy is always 100%.
One can trace a complete misunderstanding of the laws of nature in the works of Mr. Hawking. For example, he cannot explain the nature of the four fundamental forces in the Universe. Below is a brief description of these forces. Fundamental interactions (forces) — qualitatively different types of interaction of elementary particles and items composed of them.
Today it is known the existence of four fundamental interactions:
In this case the electromagnetic and weak interactions are manifestations of a single electroweak interaction. The search still continues for other types of fundamental interactions as in the phenomena of the microcosm as well as on a cosmic scale, however, any other type of fundamental interaction has not been detected yet.
The question arises: how can coexist four fundamentally different forces in the same system, unless they have a common basis? The answer is simple: they are manifestations of the same Moving Force. Needless to say, that gravity and the other three forces are the result of one and the same Moving Force.
An irrefutable proof of the aforementioned statement is the fact that it is impossible to explain any fundamental process in the Universe without taking into account its dynamic nature. There is no such a notion as chaos in nature. It only may appear at the first sight that molecules start moving chaoticaly when the temperature of the matter is raised. In fact, nature always goes in the way of the least resistance.
Another example, according to Stephen Hawking the Black hole is an absolutely isolated object. The fact that we see "the event horizon", the conditional radius of the black hole, confirms our quantum connection to this phenomenon by way of electromagnetic waves.
In the Universe there is no absolutely independent object. For example, a human being depends on food, water, air, the planet Earth depends on the Sun, which in turn depends on the galaxy Milky Way, which depends on the Universe where everything is interdependent. It turns out that any human being is dependent on the entire Universe and forms with it an indivisible unit. In this World everything exists in qualitative state, we can't find any completely independent object. With the help of mathematics we translate qualitative relation to quantitative.
It is necessary to mention a few words about the latest discovery in astrophysics. Some scientists maintain that there were supposedly detected gravitational waves in vacuum, and, in their view, this discovery confirms the statement of Einstein that in space there are some vacuum funnels in which the planets move.
Vacuum is essentially the absence of matter. In other words, the wave consisting of nothing, which was detected in absolute nothingness. We think that even people, who are not interested in physics, should understand the absurdity of these statements.
Metaphysical ideas, which were successfully straddled by astrophysics, need to be once and for all banished out of science. Science is not built on faith. Metaphysics must belong only in religion.
Take at least the statement that the electron gains mass only by motion. Again, the concept of mass is interpreted incorrectly. If the electron exists, it is already a mass. When moving, it is gaining weight and interacts with the objects of experience. As you see we refer to nothing, but physics in our analysis. If you hold on to this world, when interpreting nature, you will probably not be in the wrong. To search for some extra natural explanation of physical phenomena does not belong to physics. It is the realm of metaphysics.
Is it possible after such statements of astrophysicists continue to believe in all of the above fantasies? M-Theory and the String Theory have nothing to do with the real state of things in nature. The ideas of Mr. Hawking and Brian Greene are, to put it mildly, purely speculative.
Every objective science is based on applied logic. Astrophysics is the only science that claims objectivity, that is based on general logic, or dialectics, which gives only the appearance of truth. Therefore, astrophysics is not a science, but a dogma.
Like any dogma it has its prophets continuing the line begun by the prophet-founder. The dogmatists do not seek to conduct their teaching in accordance with the laws of nature; they try to keep themselves within the boundaries of the teaching of the founder of a certain dogma. Astrophysics, as dogma, requires very superstitious people who tend to believe in the supernatural.
Aristotle (350 BC) made the following division of philosophy:
1. Logic – the laws of thought.
2. Ethics – the moral laws.
3. Physics – the laws of nature.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) divided physics into three branches:
2. Experimental physics.
3. Pure physics.
Metaphysics also got a split into the following branches. Ontology, here, we exclude to facilitate understanding:
1. Theology (a science of God).
2. Psychology (a science of the soul).
3. Cosmology (a science of the World).
Cosmological ideas, such as the idea of an absolute beginning of the World or its eternal existence, transcend the limits of any possible experience and are called transcendental, that is unattainable in experience. If we leave metaphysics aside, cosmological ideas, unlike other metaphysical ideas, can be resolved by using a pure physics based on applied logic. Unfortunately, astrophysics whether don not want, or cannot leave the realm of metaphysics, which has lost its preeminence in science back in the 18th century.
Metaphysics deals with transcendental ideas, which go beyond the limits of any possible experience. Metaphysics (from Greek. "things after physics"). Nature is our only source on which we can rely when explaining the Universe. An absolute beginning out of nothing cannot be found in nature; everything in the world of phenomena has only a comparative beginning – a continuous change of forms of substance. The absolute beginning from nothing is a transcendental idea, which transcends any possible experience. Thus, we can conclude that astrophysics is a part of metaphysics that can be called metaphysical dogma. A dogma is a doctrine that does not take into account the possibility of our mind for such a venture. Dogmatists don't even wonder if it is possible to build any teaching on faith, especially in science.
In the past metaphysics was the queen of sciences; it dealt with everything that fell under its scrutiny. For example, any object consists of predicates (of particles), so the notion of the object (entity, consisting of particles) exists for us as an idea. In nature there are no absolutely identical objects, for example, a man. Moreover, modern medicine recognizes the fact that the human body consists of a great number of colonies of various organisms, and the term “human being” is merely a template to refer all people to this type. It is a general idea. In the past the study of the living world was done by such science as ontology.
Over time, biology and zoology replaced ontology and they were developed into practical sciences.
In the same way experimental physics was separated from metaphysics and was developed into a practical science. In the example with Newton's laws we vividly see that the laws of physics – just ideas. Take any other law of experimental physics, no matter to what extent the result of our experiment is correct, nevertheless there are differences at the molecular or atomic level during each experiment, but the discrepancies are so small that they do not affect the practical result.
Mathematics and physics are two sciences of our reason. For example, pick up a sheet of paper and give it the value "one", then break it into two halves and attach to the same sheet the value "two". In math we apply numbers and formulas to objects of experience. The same can be observed with experimental physics, where we subjugate nature to the ideas of our mind (the laws of physics), in accordance with the cause and effect relationship.
It's important to distinguish the laws of physics and the laws of nature. The laws of nature are the cause and effect relationship. A particular cause in nature always gives the same result. Using the experience of cause and effect relationship, we apply it to experience in order to obtain practical results in experimental physics. It is a common mistake that we use the laws of physics; on the contrary, we subjugate nature under these laws. After all, if the laws of physics are the ideas of our mind, how can we use pure ideas? We can only subdue nature to the ideas.
That is why there a lot of confusion around quantum mechanics. Some physicists maintain that at the quantum level the laws of physics cease to operate. In this case, it is an absolute misconception. In quantum mechanics there is a rule of uncertainty: the direction of motion of an electron cannot be determined accurately. Shortly speaking, in quantum mechanics the unpredictability in the behavior of atomic particles has a defining value. That is, each experiment gives a different result.
Another important note, there is one more misconception that quantum mechanics was once metaphysics, therefore, astrophysics will also become a science. Pick up any item that is made up of trillions of atoms. Atoms are objects of experience, that is, they exist as real particles, but metaphysical ideas (Big Bang, Inflationary theory, etc.) lie outside of any possible experience, and they will never be the subject of physics, but forever remain only ideas.
Experimental physics deals with objects of experience. In experimental physics we submit nature under the laws developed by our mind according to the cause and effect relationship. For example, airplane, ship, car exist as physical objects only because we were able to use nature for our own purposes. Those objects are mere products of human activity.
Pure physics (physica rationalis) explains the world, based on nature. This science is based on fundamental empirical principles below which we cannot go in the analysis of the physical world. For example, we cannot exclude of our analysis the principle of the permanence of matter and its eternal motion. If we do this, we will eliminate from our analysis the world itself and will be left with nothing. Thus, we will destroy the basic empirical principle: nothing comes from nothing; nothing comes down to nothing.
The dogmatic method is a network of evidence supporting one side of a transcendental idea, for example, the Universe has an absolute beginning in time out of nothing (an idea similar to the Big Bang theory). Unfortunately for the dogmatist this idea has an antithesis, which cannot be simply cast away: the Universe, in relation to time exists eternally, which has the same logical value as the first statement.
We are mistaken if we protect one of the above judgments.
Astrophysics, using the dogmatic method, enters the realm of speculation, which is suitable for blind believers, those who are accustomed to accept statements by authoritative sources for granted.
In nature there is no place for such theories as Super Symmetry, Inflation Theory, String Theory, M-Theory, the Big Bang theory as the absolute beginning of the Universe and other scientific speculations. The amount of matter can neither be destroyed nor added – the amount of matter is always constant.
If in the history of the Universe really was a Big Bang, it had to happen in all places of the Universe at the same time.
In our opinion there is only one possible explanation of this phenomenon. Matter in the form of galaxies are scattered in all directions, the amount of matter remains constant, gradually some of the galaxies lose their energy, become weak and turn into clouds of gas and dust, some of them are dispersed by black holes, some are absorbed by other galaxies merging with them. As soon as their kinetic energy becomes potential, the vacuum returns the matter to the center of the explosion. When the matter collides and merges into a solid whole, its kinetic and potential energy vanish, and in this case, nothing can prevent vacuum to break substance back. This example is given only as a speculation.
To the above list of scientific speculations can be added "boson Higa", the theory in physics, which received the Nobel Prize in 2013. Scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider may have discovered some phenomenon during their experiments, but they have to look for another explanation. Everything that exists in nature exists as substance or particle (particles), or mass. In order to gain mass for the particles, they don not need to move through mysterious “boson syrup” as the proponents of this theory maintain. Any particle already exists as a mass.
If physicists put the term “weight” instead of the concept “mass”, they should as professionals know that mass is a fundamental concept, but weight is relative. Mass may not have weight at all, for example, an astronaut in outer space. The same mass can have different weight depending on external conditions, for example, one and the same object on Earth weighs more than on Mars. We think that every student of physics knows about such simple things.
Physical formulas represent logical ideas, which we attribute to nature by ourselves. Each time, conducting an experiment, we compare the data obtained in experience with such ideas or in other case we subjugate nature under the laws which are formed according to the cause and effect relationship.
That's why the same laws of physics can be applied throughout the Universe.
Experimental physics is a science that was developed by human intelligence to get greater opportunities of harnessing nature for our own purposes.
The widely accepted view that only matter has energy has caused many misconceptions. Vacuum and matter or in other words space and objects are attributes of one and the same system.
Energy has a dual nature. On one side, the kinetic and potential energy of gravitation manifests itself as the motion of objects, on the other hand, cosmic bodies are counteracted by the inversely proportional energy of vacuum.
At this stage it is worth recalling Newton`s third law, which will confirm our thesis:
“To every action there is always on equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite direction”.
You already know that Newton's laws are ideas. In other words, Newton's laws are used as a template for us to compare the readings obtained in the experiment. Nothing, which is absolutely perfect, exists in nature. We can only compare with the idea a practical result received by experiment, which will always differ from the ideal one, formulated in the law. For clarity`s sake we will interpret Newton's third law in the following way: two opposing forces always strive for equality.
Of all dogmatic scientists Peter Atkins, a supporter of the theory of thermodynamics, came very close to the explanation of the nature of energy. However, like many dogmatists, he was not able to go beyond the academic knowledge and highlighted only the material side of energy.
He had no other choice but to introduce a mystical "demon" into his system to explain the start of the process of transition of energy from one state to another.
However, it is not necessary to have in mind a "demon" to explain the beginning of the activity of atoms, if we take into account the fact that an increase in the force of gravity deactivates, and a decrease in the force of gravity activates the excited state of the atoms.
Atkins developed a linear theory explaining change of state of energy from a certain point in time, i.e. the Big Bang, until a certain state of calmness of the cold Universe in the future. For clarity`s sake we represent his theory as a line progressing from point A to point B. Such a dogmatic approach does not solve the problem of the beginning of the Universe and its limits. In other words, how could anything come from nothing? How could exist a microscopic universe in empty space, when there had not been any space yet, and in some kind of empty time, before the beginning of real time?
Such statements are nothing but a figment of imagination. Even King Solomon and later Aristotle 350 BC maintained that everything in nature goes in never-ending circles. Unfortunately Atkins remained blind to the obvious signs of nature.
The state of the Universe before the Big Bang we explain as a process of evolution, and the consequences after the Big Bang – the process of devolution.
In this case we can rely on the second law of thermodynamics. Hot matter of the highest quality doing work is degraded to lower quality by cooling through dispersion. The whole period of existence of the Universe since the Big Bang until today – is the process of reducing the quality of matter (entropy).
Of course, if we consider the Universe as a form of galaxies of which it is composed, we can talk about the process of evolution; galaxies were formed in time, as well as any form in Nature they have a beginning.
Once again, it all depends on what angle we consider this phenomenon. We can call the evolution of galaxies a period of time after the Big Bang and at the same time the devolution of the quality of matter (lowering of the entropy) of the Universe.
We admit that the whole process after the Big Bang is the evolution of the form and devolution of matter (a decay of atoms with a larger into a smaller atomic mass) – nuclear fission.
For example, in the Sun heavier atoms have decayed into lighter, which led to the emergence of a large number of helium and hydrogen.
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, matter, doing the work, moves from a higher state of entropy to a lower, but not vice versa. That is why we believe Peter Atkins is the most prominent of dogmatic physicists. Although he did not create a theory that would explain the reason for the constant motion in the Universe, but the thermodynamics does not overstep the bounds of experience and does not fall into bizarre speculations of dogmatic fantasy. Misunderstanding of the fact that space is something real may disappear after a detailed study of the nature of gravity to which we are now proceeding.
EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF GRAVITY
The great German astronomer John Kepler 1571-1630 believed that the motion of the planets continue as long as there is a force causing their movements. Kepler assumed that the Sun rotates on its axis in the same direction, in which planets revolve. Later this was confirmed by observations.
According to his idea the rotating Sun emits immaterial waves, which capture the planets and force them take part in a circular motion.
At the same time Kepler was right about the force of gravity. He said that "two separate bodies are drawn to one another like two magnets".
Kepler's description of the cause of planetary motion around the Sun, made at the beginning of the seventeenth century, was mistakenly put aside, after Newton presented his theory of gravity. Newton could not explain the cause of planetary motion and in the end attributed it to Divine Providence. In those times his idea was accepted with applause.
Now we will make an attempt to promote the idea of Kepler and Newtonian gravity to their logical conclusion.
Let us take a closer look at the Solar System. The Sun rotates on its axis and also forces the planets rotate on their axes as well and revolves them around itself.
Using the gravitational force the Sun moves Earth around itself in a certain orbit, which depends on their mutual masses. The kinetic energy of Earth directs it away from the star, but it is kept in its orbit by the force of gravitational attraction of the Sun.
If there were a rigid connection between the star and its planet, Earth would revolve in unison with the Sun. Such a connection in fact does not exist, and the gravitational forces of the star are not able to produce such an effect.
The planets of the Solar System lag behind of the speed of rotation of the Sun, and we are deceived by the illusion that our planet revolves around the static Sun. In fact Earth orbits it with some delay. The question arises: where does the energy come to as a result of this delay?
The lagging behind of Earth affects its spin around its axis; there is a loss of efficiency coefficient due to excessive mass.
Similarly the Moon always turns one of its sides to Earth. Venus would possibly turn one of its sides to the Sun in the same way, if it were not for the gravitational influence of Mercury and Earth, which spin Venus in the opposite direction relative to the rotation of the other planets. This confirms the fact that one and the same cause that makes the elliptic orbits of the planets, tilts the Earth and other planets at a certain angle as well. This cause is called the Universal Law of Gravitation.
In its turn, the gravitational force of our galaxy holds the Solar System at a certain distance from the center of the Milky Way stretching orbits of the planets of the Solar System and making them oval.
A detailed study of Earth clearly shows us that the Northern hemisphere has more dry land above the sea level than the Southern one, consequently it has more mass.
The gravitational force of the galaxy attracts the Earth to itself stretching its orbit and thereby changing the tilt of its axis angle. The Northern hemisphere with more mass remains closer to the Sun than the Southern one; its temperature increases. The summer comes.
When the gravitational force of the Sun takes the Earth to the opposite side, away from the center of the galaxy, the heavier Northern hemisphere is deflected to the opposite side changing the tilt angle of the Earth bringing winter to the North and summer to the South.
We will venture to admit that the extinction of the dinosaurs lasted for millions of years and was caused by climate change. Our planet is alive. For billions of years its shape has been changing.
The core of the Earth is very hard and condensed and encircled with liquid magma.
The core of the Earth is always on the move, it does not stay in the exact centre of the mass of the Earth. Since the core is very massive it tends to go backwards to some extent and turns with some delay relative to the movement of the Earth. Thus it perturbs the magma. This conclusion gives us a hint that geological activity of our planet is produced by the core, which creates turbulence of the magma and exerts pressure on the cortex. Volcanic eruptions and the influence of different gravitational forces of the Solar System and nearby stars change the shape of the Earth.
The change in mass of the Southern hemisphere millions of years ago created conditions for the development of different life forms due to warming. At the same time the Northern hemisphere has entered a phase of ice age. Dinosaurs were very massive; they needed a large amount of heat and food for survival.
The harsh climate of the ice age in the Northern hemisphere affected the dinosaurs and led to their extinction. Why do many scientists tie the extinction of the dinosaurs to the collision of a huge asteroid or comet with the Earth about 60 million years ago?
Preservation of biological remains is only possible as a result of unexpected incident, which covered them at once and created favorable conditions for turning them into fossils.
Found dinosaur remains are always associated with some catastrophe: asteroid, volcanic eruption, etc. Otherwise their preservation is impossible. In natural conditions with direct atmospheric impact they turn into biological material by decaying into atoms.
A formation of any star begins with a rotation of a mass of matter, which first starts to attract more massive particles to it leaving lighter ones behind. The star continues to retain around itself the mass of the remaining particles as big as the force of gravity can allow.
The area depleted of matter as a result of the formation of the star is balanced by the gravity of neighboring stars. There is a boundary of gravitational equality that each star has with the neighboring stars. The location of the resultant gravitational boundary is considered to be that region of the galaxy where the attracting force of the star is balanced by the oppositely acting force of attraction of the neighboring stars. There is a field of a vacuum contact of oppositely directed flows of energy.
Spacecrafts use these gravitational flows to gain speed by circling Earth and leaving the region of gravitational attraction of the planet.
We maintain that every planet with its satellites, every planetary system and every galaxy deprive space of matter and create vacuum areas as a result of formation of heavenly bodies. Thus, the gravitational pull holds the Universe together.
Let's take a closer look at the formation of the Solar System. At a time when the mass of the star ceases to attract constituent matter as a result of the establishment of the counterbalancing forces, the remaining matter is left around the star and held by the forces of gravity. Later it starts gathering into more massive objects.
It results in creation of alternating rings of vacuum and matter around the star. The planets start appearing.
A similar process can be easily observed if we pay a closer look at Saturn with its rings. The rings tell us that the moons of Saturn have not been formed thoroughly yet and perhaps will never be, since the gravitational pull of Saturn is already balanced by the circling matter.
What can be confirmed or refuted of part, can be confirmed or refuted of the whole. This gives us a hint that the Solar System billions of years ago had a similar view. Almost every circle of matter around the star was formed into a planet with its moons and a region of emptiness or vacuum left behind.
Earth due to its spherical shape by rotating around its axis by centrifugal force collects matter, circling in the zone of its gravitational influence, to itself. Heavy particles form solid or molten portion; the lightest once the atmosphere.
We are accustomed to consider matter as tangible. Air consists of gases, that is, of matter, but it is transparent to us. Thus, matter divided into smaller particles becomes imperceptible to our sensitive organs, i.e. invisible.
The energy of the Universe assembles matter into celestial bodies and due to the difference of forces gives it various densities. This is the reason for its diversity.
In the first half of the twentieth century Einstein saw that the theory of Newton, which had huge success, was in conflict with his special theory of relativity. Einstein sought a new theory of gravity compatible with special relativity. In our opinion, he offered some valuable hypotheses, but did not solve the problem.
Einstein called accelerated motion and gravity inseparable principles. Accelerating up the elevator, he said, creates a sense of gravity. Einstein came a few steps closer to the solution of the mystery of gravity. Unfortunately, he was unable to understand the fact that gravity, as a universal law, is not a consequence of accelerated, but of rotational motion, which you will see in the process of further analysis.
He worked on the problem of gravity with excessive intensity, sometimes amounting to obsession. Five years later, after his happy discovery in the Berne office he wrote to physicist Arnold Somerfield: "Now I am working exclusively on the problem of gravity... I must admit that never in my life have I tormented myself so much... In comparison with the special theory of relativity it is a child's play.
In order to understand his new view of gravity, let's consider a prototypical planet such as Earth, which revolves around a star such as the Sun.
In Newtonian gravity the Sun keeps the Earth in orbit through strange gravitational "grip" that somehow stretches across a huge distance in space and provides their connection.
Gravity, according to Einstein's view, is the consequence of curved space-time. The relationship between gravity, accelerated motion, and curved space led Einstein to the erroneous assumption that the presence of mass, such as the Sun, curves space around it.
Even before the discovery of the special theory of relativity, Newtonian theory of gravity was missing one very important detail. Although it very accurately explains the motion of objects under the influence of gravity, but the nature of gravitation remains unexplained.
I mean, how can two bodies that are physically separated from each other, possibly for hundreds of millions of kilometers, if not more, however, to render each other a mutual influence? How can gravity carry out its mission? Newton himself realized this problem.
"It is unthinkable, how can inanimate gross matter, without the aid of anything else that is material, influence other matter without mutual contact. For me it is complete nonsense, that gravity must initially be intrinsic to matter so that one body can act on another through a large distance in a vacuum, without the help of anything that could transfer the force. I think that any person who is in possession of philosophical thinking will not be perplexed by this difficulty. Gravity must be the consequence of some cause acting on the permanent, certain laws; but whether this cause is material or immaterial, I leave to the readers".
We, in the process of our analysis, used philosophical knowledge of the most advanced thinkers in the history of mankind and the achievements of modern astronomy and science and came to the following conclusion. When Earth, using gravitational pull, attracts the constituent matter, it creates a vacuum above the atmosphere.
Then Earth retains the moon in its orbit with the help of the vacuum. It is important to note that gravity does not act through vacuum, as erroneously believed Newton, but by vacuum. The moon in its turn exerts a gravitational influence on Earth. Due to the kinetic energy it spreads its atmosphere, which is the cause of the tides.
For instance, when one sucks air out of a bottle, the vacuum begins to draw his tongue and lips inside.
In the same way the vacuum of Earth acts on the moon, it seems to “suck upon” the moon and retains it at a certain distance.
Therefore, the vacuum of Earth is balanced by the vacuum of the Sun.
It is time to define the term "vacuum". Vacuum is a rarefied area of space from matter, which to some extent are filled with electrons and micro particles.
It should be noted that the solar vacuum does not act directly on the objects in space. If it were so, the Sun would draw the Kepler asteroid belt to itself, since the mass of any asteroid is insignificant compared with the mass of planets of the Solar System. The Solar vacuum holds the planets with the help of the void that they create around themselves by spinning.
Empirical proof 1.
The international Space Station (ISS) is located in vacuum above Earth since its launch. Although Earth is in a circular motion around the Sun, the ISS remains approximately at the same distance from Earth and travels with it together around the Sun.
It brings us home the fact that the ISS is there in a vacuum created by the planet Earth. That vacuum is local; it is a direct consequence of Earth's rotation around its axis.
Empirical proof 2.
A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same), but because the planet orbits the Sun the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun.
Vacuum is not modified in any way due to the lack of content of matter, it is immaterial and its force is constant. Although cosmic vacuum contains a certain amount of matter, and there is no absolute vacuum in nature, yet it does not cease to be emptiness in which a certain volume of particles can stay or move. It is a mathematically proven fact that solar gravitation acts with equal force on all the planets of the Solar System. Constant force of vacuum (vis activa) is opposed by a changeable moving force of matter (vis passiva or vis inertia), which can be split into kinetic and potential energies.
Now we know that vacuum and matter are two parts of the same system. Our neighboring galaxy Andromeda as well as any other galaxy is connected with the galaxy Milky Way by means of vacuum. When their energies diminish with time, the components start moving away from the centers of galaxies in the field of action of their own vacuum. Thus the matter of Andromeda approaches the Milky Way, but as a vacuum-matter system it remains in the same place, because its expansion occurs in the field of its own vacuum. We can say that Andromeda is approaching and not approaching us, it all depends on how we view this phenomenon.
In the event of a merger of two galaxies happens a creation one system of seems to be two separate components. In this case, a permutation of the parts occurs, the whole is not disturbed.
Some of distant galaxies may no longer exist in the form in which we can see them, maybe they are faded, have merged with other galaxies or have been dispersed by black holes. We also cannot see some young galaxies, because their light has not reached us yet. That's why we are deceived by the illusion of expansion of the Universe. We see a fading glow of dying galaxies and mistakenly conclude that they are moving away from us. Therefore, the Inflation theory is another absurdity. Galaxies are really expanding within their systems, and also they may be moving from each other as physical objects, but as a whole, the objects and vacuum, the Universe always takes its places and remains at a state of rest.
From experimental physics we know that when something moves or changes, or expands it does so relative to something else. The question arises: relative to what does the Universe expand, if it includes everything in itself?
In accordance with the Universal Law of Gravitation attraction of space objects to each other happens in the entire Universe. A person, who says that the neighboring galaxies are approaching us and the distant galaxies are receding from us, goes against the laws of physics. As if gravity acts only in the limits of our neighboring galaxies, and the rest of the Universe exists on some other laws.
Accordingly, vacuum of Earth is balanced by vacuum of the Sun. Resultant forces in the Solar System is constantly changing, at the moment in favor of the planets of the Solar system; they reduce the gravitational pull of the Sun and it gives off energy, i.e. light.
Now we have a general picture of the Universe: the gravitational field of any star is balanced by the planetary mass of the system, the gravitational field of a star system is balanced by the gravity of the galaxy, and the gravity of the galaxy is balanced by the gravity of the Universe – everything should work like clockwork.
But it is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. Black holes and immense clouds of gas and dust seem to upset this superior integrity.
Representatives of the school of Mr. Hawking (M-Theory) and the followers of Mr. Brian Greene (the String Theory) and some other astrophysicists maintain that the Black hole has such strong gravity that even light cannot escape it. Not inventing anything new we open any textbook on physics and get acquainted ourselves with the term "speed of light". The speed of light is the rate of change of voltage of an electric field. In other words, almost nothing moves unless you not consider the motion of electrons, which is not directly related to the speed of light.
For example, we open a water tap and the water immediately starts to flow. A signal, which are transmitted through the hydraulic system that the pressure has changed, works immediately, but water is not running at the speed of light, is it? The same happens with electrons. The speed of light is the speed of a signal transmission. If there is an electric field (the presence of electrons), then there must be a signal. Another thing, if such a field is absent.
Another serious mistake that Mr. Hawking and Brian Greene and other astrophysicists make is that they claim that in a center of the Black hole there is a very massive microscopic object that creates very powerful gravity.
Let's look again at the Solar System. The name itself tells us that the Solar System is a system. Our galaxy Milky Way is a system as well.
Therefore, we cannot prove the existence of anything in space not as a system. One system is connected with another, for example, the Solar System related to our galaxy which in turn is associated with other galaxies through gravity and electric field, and finally the atom itself is a system.
How can we prove the existence of a microscopic, invisible to us, and a super massive self-sufficient object?
Naturally, neither logic nor physics can provide us with such evidence. All of the above statements of astrophysicists are mere absurdities. We advise all fantasy fans to read Mr. Hawking and Brian Greene`s books. After reading them, they will significantly expand their imagination.
A detailed study of the telescope Hobble, which is located in open space, showed that it seems that each galaxy has at its center a black hole that causes circular motion, and keeps the matter around it.
Then what is the Black hole? What is the nature of its origin? Is it really just consequences of the explosion of a giant star or maybe something else?
In order to better understand the nature of black holes, we need to take another closer look at the Solar System.
There is the Sun In the center of the Solar System, which consists of the densest material in the system and forms plasma. The light spectrum, which has helped scientists to make assumptions about the composition of the star, appears after a release by the star its atoms in the solar atmosphere and their subsequent cooling and crystallization in the gas atoms. The first planet to the Sun – Mercury consists of more dense particles in the system. After Mercury goes Venus – it includes smaller percentage of heavy metals, and then goes Earth, Mars, gas giants and planets made of gas, ice and dust.
It is easy to notice that with increasing distance from the Sun matter density decreases.
It is important to understand the fact that the Sun, like any other body in the Universe, has no auto gravitation; its mass and density is the direct sequence of the gravity of the Milky Way. Hence, we can conclude that the Solar System, as any other system in the galaxy, was formed of the ready material (atoms).
Now, if we apply this conclusion to the whole galaxy, it will be easy to understand that the closest stars to the black hole of the Milky Way is a very dense and massive dwarfs, similar to Mercury, then go stars with lower density, such as our Sun, and on the outskirts of the galaxy are huge giant stars with less and less density.
All this gives us a hint about a unique location of Earth not only in the Solar System, but in our galaxy as well. Earth is apparently the only planet in our galaxy that has organic life. It is impossible to say with certainty or even imagine that there is life in other galaxies, but in the Milky Way galaxy it probably exists only on Earth.
Gravity produces circular motion of the planets, which are formed of circular rings of matter around the stars. But the gravitational forces of the galaxies lose their strength over time and weaken their grip over the surrounding mass. Equilibrium of gravitational forces is in constant change. One of the basic natural principles states that nature abhors vacuum. Vacuum is opposite force of gravity. It always strives to break matter into fine particles and to fill the void.
The energy of the Universe is constant; it is balanced on one side by gravity, which is a collective strength and on the other side by power of vacuum.
When the holding force of the Milky Way diminishes the Sun's atmosphere extends within solar vacuum, as a result, Earth's atmosphere expands within its own vacuum as well. This happens in the entire Universe. Substance moves in the Universe and not in some mysterious infinite space, as some astrophysics mistakenly claim.
Black holes are an integral part of the Universe; they are those engines that rotate galaxies. Matter is always distributed in space with their help. The Moving power of the Universe moves matter creating turbulence; galaxies are formed by black holes.
The black hole is essentially a vacuum hole that "sucks" matter inward and sends it to another place in the Universe. But now it gathers more and more matter and throws less and less away. This leads to accumulation of the mass around its center, which contributes to the relative balance of forces of action and reaction. At last it becomes passive. It does not throw matter into space anymore, but rotates it around itself. There appear stars and planets. The galaxy is formed now. Over time it loses its strength to vacuum and begins the reverse process of decomposition.
But where then does the energy come from? The energy in the Universe is constant. The uneven distribution of matter in the Universe causes motion. The reason for the motion is the perpetual struggle of matter with vacuum.
Why do galaxies collide?
The black hole sends matter away from itself. This process adds mass to other galaxies, which weakens their power, and they become prey to stronger neighbors.
Space telescope "Planck" launched in 2009 has identified a relatively large cold spot that extends much wider than the standard model can explain. This confirms the existence of stored energy of vacuum.
A Supernova explosion is another source of the emergence of The Black hole, which is confirmed by science.
Vacuum is ubiquitous in the Universe and it is not material; it is an active or creative power. On the other hand, matter has a passive force or inertial force. Because of the fact that it provides resistance, matter cannot create itself.
Imagine a pendulum that has no friction parts, it can work in vacuum constantly. That's why the Universe is in constant motion. Vacuum always acts with a constant force; it does not change, does not decompose and cannot be exhausted, because it is immaterial. On the other hand, the inertial force of matter is changeable, and therefore, these two opposite forces cannot come to a balance.
We know from experience that with time energy decreases. There must be an ever-increasing gravitational attraction of the Sun to produce the effect of an inner fusion of atoms. Regarding this case nature teaches us that the quality of matter cannot be increased by itself.
We flatly refuse to accept the idea of a causeless solar compression, and the idea of fusion of atoms and the emergence from this process helium and hydrogen. We argue that these gases are present on the Sun as a result of atomic decomposition of elements with greater atomic mass. This process is a consequence of natural decrease, not increase, as some astrophysics maintain, of the force of gravity.
SOLUTION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL PROBLEM BY IMMANUEL KANT
According to Immanuel Kant there is nothing in the Universe that can be accepted as a basic principle of its explanation, but substance. Wherever we look we see a constant change of material forms. The amount of matter and energy is always constant. Everything changes in time, but time itself is unchangeable. In other words, constant time is just another notion for substance. In all changes of the World the amount of substance remains the same, only its form changes. Time and matter are identical concepts.
When we speak of time we have to use the term “permanent”, since time always takes the present moment. Everything flows in time, but time remains the same. It is inappropriate to use the term “eternal” in this case, since it means some kind of duration. Cosequently, it is better to say that the Universe is not eternal, but permanent.
We always find ourselves at the present time, which occupies only one moment. This moment is the state of rest and we can observe motion only with the help our memory, that is, by experience. If motion were absolute, then we could be in the past, present, and future, we could travel in time. In reality, we compare what was before with what is now and thus comprehend the change, which we interpret as movement. If we did not have memory, we would not be able to comprehend change, we would always see the present image. Once again, it all depends on which angle we consider the given phenomenon. From the point of view of the present time, there is always a state of rest; from the point of view of experience – there is motion. The state of rest and motion occur simultaneously. The Universe just exists; it exists always at the present time and always takes all its places.
If you open any textbook on physics, you will read that motion is relative to something.
Two astrologers, who lived in the eighteenth century, entered into a heated debate. One of them claimed that the Moon rotates on its axis, because we always see one of its sides. Another one asserted that the Moon does not rotate around its axis for the same reason. Both of them were right, depending on a view we observe this phenomenon. From the perspective of an observer on earth, the Moon does not rotate around its axis; relative to celestial bodies it does.
In the above example motion and rest occur at the same time.
Kant argued that we cannot determine the limit or infinity of the Universe even in mind. If we try to imagine any of the limits, we will get into a bind, as we will not be able to answer the question about what goes farther; beyond the limit we will mentally set will be something else; thus, we will not be able to stop the process of a synthesis. Proposition: the Universe is infinite will be too great for our understanding.
If we assume that the Universe has boundaries, we will have to explain what goes farther. Judgment: The Universe is limited will be too small for our understanding. Any judgment regarding the limits of the Universe will be either too large or too small for our understanding.
Space is merely a form of our external perception, and it is not a real object. Space is limited by objects, rather than limits them.
Concepts such as “limited” and “unlimited” are only products of our mind. To our mind the Universe appears as the World, that is, a numerical whole which we interpret with the help of mathematics.
The Universe, in the meaning of Nature, is a dynamic entity, so it is neither infinite nor limited in respect of space and time. The Universe is just there. The Universe as a whole can be conceived only as an idea; it cannot be scientifically proven.
The Universe takes all places at once, and those limits, which some people tend to attribute to it is a mere product of our intuition. Now it can be clearly seen that for us space is three-dimensional. In experience we attach to phenomena of nature three dimensions, which are only an ability of our mind to interpret the external situation. For Nature it is irrelevant.
Every correct proposition of any theory must be a consequence of the previous and the cause of the subsequent one, and this chain must be continued until a logical completeness is built. Such a solution is possible only when the beginning is simultaneously the end. The explanation of the nature of the Universe is possible only using empirical and logical principles, breaking which will get us into the world of ideas and fantasies. This explanation can be built on the gravitational theory of the distribution of cosmic energy, because it does not go beyond experience.
Any theory that is based on a generation of space and time in the distant past, on a limited or unlimited space, etc., is only a figment of imagination. The limits of the Universe will forever remain inaccessible as to any possible experience as well as to our mental comprehension.
Very often, after talking with people, we hear in our address such statements as, it is your subjective point of view, and it is your subjective opinion. We just have to define the concepts "subjective" and "objective" in order to make our work more clear for our readers.
Our judgment about an object is objective if it touches the object, for example, this table is made of wood.
The judgment, which concerns our relation to the object, is subjective, for example, this table is beautiful.
Gradation of knowledge.
1. Opinion is both subjectively and objectively insufficient.
2. Belief and faith are subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient.
3. Knowledge is subjectively and objectively sufficient. Knowledge is objective when our judgment about an object and the object itself coincide.
The materials used
1. Isaac Newton: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and the
System of the World.
2. Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason.
3. Albert Einstein: Relativity: the Special and General Theory.
4. Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe (the String Theory).
5. Steven Hawking and Leonardo of Mlodinow: Majestic Design (M-Theory).
6. Josip Polak: the Course of General Astronomy.
7. Peter Atkins: Order and Disorder in Nature (Thermodynamics).
8. Christian Wolff: Cosmology.
9. Other public sources from the Internet.
Свидетельство о публикации №216031401842