Andrey Belousov
With the assistance of Alexey Kuchko
THE IMMATERIAL SIDE OF ENERGY
Introduction
The central purpose of The Immaterial Side of Energy is not to add another mathematical model to the already enormous collection of cosmological models. Its purpose is more radical. The work asks what can legitimately be said about Nature when we refuse to treat an idea as an empirical fact merely because the idea can be expressed in sophisticated mathematics. The author repeatedly returns to a distinction between what exists in experience and what is constructed by the human mind in order to organize experience.
From this point of view, the book is simultaneously a work of natural philosophy and a polemic against what the author considers metaphysical excess in modern cosmology. Its preferred starting point is the world that can be observed: matter changes its form; bodies move; forces interact; astronomical systems are organized; radiation reaches observers; and every phenomenon is embedded in relations with other phenomena. The author therefore asks whether cosmology can be reconstructed without beginning with an unknowable absolute beginning, an infinite external space, or entities that have not themselves been empirically established.
The phrase 'immaterial side of energy' names the most distinctive direction of the argument. The manuscript does not treat vacuum as a mere nothing. Instead, it proposes that the apparent emptiness surrounding matter participates in the organization of matter and in gravitation. Matter is associated with inertia, resistance, mass, and motion; vacuum is interpreted as the opposing or active side of the same cosmic system. Gravitation consequently becomes, in the author's theory, not a mysterious attraction operating across an otherwise passive void, but a process arising from the relationship between rotating matter and an opposing vacuum condition.
Whether this proposed mechanism is accepted scientifically is a separate question from whether it is philosophically interesting. The expanded edition therefore makes the architecture of the argument visible. It asks what assumptions are being made, what follows from them, where the theory differs from Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, quantum theory, and contemporary cosmology, and which statements are empirical claims versus philosophical interpretations.
The author begins his work with a philosophical warning: mathematics is extraordinarily powerful, but its power should not be confused with ontological authority. A mathematical expression can describe a relationship with astonishing precision without telling us what the entities in that relationship ultimately are. Numbers, equations, coordinates and functions are instruments of description. They become physically meaningful only when connected with observations, measurements and operations that can be performed in the world.
This distinction is essential to the author's criticism of cosmology. A mathematical construction may be internally consistent and may generate predictions, yet its mathematical existence does not automatically establish the physical existence of every object appearing in the construction. The question is not whether mathematics is correct. The question is what has been demonstrated about Nature and what has merely been represented by a formal system.
The author uses ordinary objects to illustrate the abstraction involved in counting. A tree can be counted as one tree, leaves can be counted as leaves, and molecules can be represented numerically. But Nature itself does not contain the numeral 'one' as a physical particle. The number belongs to the conceptual activity by which the observer distinguishes and groups phenomena.
This does not diminish mathematics. On the contrary, mathematics is valuable precisely because the human mind can construct stable abstractions from unstable and changing phenomena. Measurement would be impossible without abstraction. Engineering would be impossible without mathematical relations. Physics becomes quantitative because mathematics permits us to compare phenomena that are otherwise qualitatively different. Therefore, the author criticises some astrophysical ideas by means of applied logic and the laws of Nature. Simply because it is impossible to beat perfect mathematical calculations with mathematics.
1
The content
1. Mathematics is a pure science________________3
2. Criticism of the Western astrophysics________6
3. Explanation of the nature of gravitation_____23
4. Black hole___________________________________35
5. Solution of the cosmological problem by
Immanuel Kant___________________________________41
2
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 all its enormous diversity and apparent complexity, can, in principle, be reduced in our consideration to the structure of a single atom, and we could then discard further debates and discussions about the multiplicity of things. Indeed, if we look at nature through a sufficiently powerful microscope, the enormous variety of objects surrounding us begins to disappear, and what seemed to be an endless diversity is reduced to protons, neutrons, electrons and other elementary constituents. The world that appeared to us to consist of trees, stones, animals, human beings and countless other objects is transformed into a much smaller number of fundamental elements and their relationships.
Modern science is replete with different theories attempting to explain the essence of the Universe and the cause of its existence. Some of these theories replace previously accepted ideas, while others confirm, modify or extend traditionally recognized theories. This is a natural process in the development of human knowledge. Each new explanation attempts to reach deeper into the structure of nature and to establish relationships that were previously unknown or insufficiently understood.
This should also be the case with String Theory. In their attempt to explain everything, its proponents begin with a world of imaginable subatomic particles and ultimately arrive at concepts that are no less imaginable, such as parallel universes. In other words, they move from something that cannot be directly detected to something that is even further beyond our ordinary experience. We begin with something undetectable and finish with something unreachable.
Therefore, modern astrophysics has, in many respects, become a haven for scientists with an unlimited power of imagination. This aspiration to explain everything has sometimes gone beyond reasonable proportions, creating a situation in which the impossible may become confused with the merely unthinkable. Human imagination is capable of constructing an enormous number of possibilities, but not every possibility produced by the human mind corresponds to something existing in nature.
When imagination outreaches the laws of physics and logic, the distinction between a physical phenomenon and an intellectual construction becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. In our day and age, it is particularly easy to become lost in such a huge array of information. Every new mathematical model, every new hypothesis and every new theoretical construction can appear impressive, especially when it is supported by complicated calculations that are difficult for a non-specialist to follow.
In this work we will review the main principles upon which nature and its laws rest. The purpose of such a review is not merely to provide another theory among existing theories. Rather, it is to establish a basis from which the consistency of different theories can be considered independently. If we understand the fundamental principles governing our reasoning about nature, we will have an opportunity to judge different explanations on our own instead of accepting them merely because they have been expressed in sophisticated mathematical language.
THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WORLD
In Ancient Greece, approximately in the fifth to third centuries B.C., there were formed three philosophical schools that offered different interpretations of the World. The founders and most important representatives of these branches of philosophy were Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus.
Plato was a supporter of the divine origin of the World. According to this general approach, the visible material world could not be considered sufficient in itself; behind it there had to be a higher principle or source. This point of view was later monopolized and developed by the Christian Church. Among the most striking representatives of the divine idea we can name Leibniz, Wolf and the Christian Church.
Aristotle attempted to give a logical explanation of the World. He tried to understand nature through reason, causes and logical relationships. The most striking proponents of this general movement, in the author's interpretation, are Einstein, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking, who are considered among the brightest representatives of modern astrophysics.
Epicurus was the founder of the school that advocated an empirical interpretation of the World. He based his arguments primarily upon the laws of nature and upon what could be understood from the material world itself. His followers can be considered Lucretius, Newton and Kant.
The basic principles of this philosophy can be expressed as follows:
Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing comes down to nothing. Matter is constant, while only its form is variable.
Vacuum abhors emptiness. It always acts upon matter, attempting to become filled with it.
These principles establish a fundamentally different starting point. Instead of searching for something outside the material world, they attempt to understand the World by considering the properties and behavior of nature itself.
Representatives of the divine and logical movements, unlike the empirical movement, were in search of the Prime Mover. They attempted to find an original cause that would explain why the World exists at all. Basing their arguments on Nature, they proposed ideas that went beyond any possible experience.
This is the point at which metaphysics enters the discussion. Religion and astrophysics, despite their enormous differences, both attempt to explain aspects of existence that cannot be directly experienced by ordinary empirical means. They therefore inevitably make use of concepts that go beyond immediate observation.
Further in this work we will consider in detail the practical possibilities and limitations of metaphysics.
THE IDEA OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD
At all times there has been one prominent idea concerning the origin of the World or, more precisely, one general human desire to find an ultimate explanation for existence. The particular interpretation preferred by society has depended largely upon the prevailing ideology.
In the past, the religious idea was predominant. The origin and order of the World were explained by reference to God or another transcendent principle. Nowadays, the astrophysical interpretation of the Universe is accepted by the majority of educated society and has largely replaced the traditional religious explanation in scientific discourse.
However, religious and astrophysical ideas, in their ultimate claims concerning the origin of everything, can neither be completely proved nor completely disproved. It goes without saying that we cannot consider the Creator of the World to be a material object available to direct observation. In a similar way, we cannot observe the Big Bang itself as an ordinary material object or event occurring before our eyes.
In the first case, the material World is interpreted as confirmation of the existence of the idea of its Creator. In the second case, the observed motion and distribution of stars and planets provide the physical basis for the idea of the Big Bang.
We deliberately write “idea” rather than “theory”, because a theory, in the empirical sense, should be capable of being confronted with observations and experimental arguments. A transcendental idea, by contrast, is impossible to prove through direct experience.
We will never be able to observe the Big Bang as a phenomenon in real time. Although it may belong to the supposed cause-and-effect sequence describing the changing Universe, it is not possible for us to consider it as a natural phenomenon occurring now and available for direct examination.
We can think of the Big Bang only as an idea based upon available physical data. Those data may provide reasons for accepting the idea, but they cannot turn the original event into an observable experiment.
It cannot be fully proved that the Big Bang occurred exactly in the form in which astrophysics depicts it to us, because there is no such event available to us as an experimental phenomenon in Nature. The Big Bang is reconstructed from observations of the present state of the Universe and from mathematical models connecting these observations with an assumed earlier state.
The Big Bang is therefore not experimental evidence in itself. It is an idea that originates from consideration and reflection upon physical observations. It is, in this sense, something that has first been formed in someone's mind and then used to interpret observations.
If this idea is removed from our intellectual framework, we will not find a material object called “the Big Bang” somewhere in nature waiting to be observed. We will find stars, galaxies, radiation, matter and motion. The interpretation that connects these observations with an original cosmic event belongs to the human mind.
In this paper we will therefore retain ourselves exclusively within the boundaries of Nature. We believe that this is the only way to resolve the cosmological issue without introducing assumptions that cannot be subjected to experience.
THE QUESTIONS THAT SCIENCE CANNOT FULLY ANSWER
Science has given us answers to almost all the practical questions concerning our Universe. It has enabled humanity to measure distances, calculate masses, determine chemical compositions, study radiation and investigate the behavior of matter on scales ranging from the smallest particles to enormous astronomical structures.
Nevertheless, there remain questions for which even science has difficulty providing final answers:
How big is the Universe?
Did the Universe have a beginning, or has it always existed?
Does everything that happens in the Universe conform solely to the laws of Nature, or is there Divine intervention?
These questions demonstrate the boundary between empirical knowledge and metaphysical interpretation.
To the above questions metaphysics, including astrophysical and theological interpretations, gives satisfactory answers. Unfortunately, the theories and ideas proposed in these areas can neither be completely confirmed nor completely refuted. They deal with ideas that are above Nature, or at least beyond the reach of direct experience.
Science is based upon the material and upon what can be observed, measured and tested. What lies outside Nature, or what cannot be brought into experience, becomes an idea that one can accept or reject, but not establish in the same way as an experimentally observed fact.
For this reason, we have left metaphysics alone and based our arguments solely upon pure physics and applied logic.
THE POWER AND LIMITATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
A great number of people have become accustomed to accepting scientific ideas supported by mathematical formulas almost automatically. Mathematical expressions can appear so precise and authoritative that the thinker who does not understand them may feel insignificant in the face of modern science.
The greater the complexity of the calculation, the greater the impression of certainty can become. Yet mathematical complexity should not be confused with physical truth.
Some cosmological ideas proposed by mathematicians, ideas that the modern scientific world considers archaic or obsolete, were also supported by excellent formulas. The formulas themselves did not guarantee the correctness of the ideas from which they were derived.
What kind of secret, therefore, lurks behind all this?
Has not the time arrived for mathematics to share its leading position in cosmology with critical philosophy?
Is mathematics able to explain the Universe without philosophy?
Mathematics is an exact science, and it does not tolerate mistakes. However, the ideas submitted to mathematical examination can themselves be wrong.
This distinction is fundamental.
A mathematical calculation may be perfectly correct while the physical interpretation to which it is applied may be incorrect. If the initial assumptions are wrong, mathematics will faithfully develop the consequences of those assumptions. It will not independently determine whether the assumptions correspond to reality.
Mathematics is our language by which we interpret Nature and transform information about Nature into more understandable figures, relationships and formulas. It extends our practical abilities enormously because it allows us to establish quantitative relationships that would otherwise be impossible to comprehend.
But a language is not the same thing as the reality that it describes.
NUMBERS AND OBJECTS IN NATURE
Among billions of tree leaves in the world, there are probably not even two absolutely identical ones. Yet the leaves are not separate objects existing independently of everything else. They are parts of trees, and the trees themselves are parts of Nature.
We cannot therefore simply assign a number to every leaf as if each leaf were an absolutely independent entity existing on its own.
Among billions of molecules making up a single leaf, there are probably also no absolutely identical molecules. Their differences in electronic charges and other properties participate in their interactions. Molecules attract and repel one another and exchange or redistribute charges and energy.
Consequently, our determination of the concept of a separate entity stops at the point where we ascribe general characteristics to a group of objects based upon approximately similar properties.
We call something an “object” because we recognize a certain degree of unity within it. We then give that object a name and, if necessary, a number. But this number does not exist in Nature in the same way that the material object exists.
A leaf does not carry the number “one” inside itself.
The tree does not contain the number “one” as a material component.
The number is assigned by our mind for the purpose of distinguishing, counting and comparing.
It means that numbers representing separate objects exist only in our heads. Therefore, it is pointless to look for mathematics in Nature in the same form in which mathematics exists in human thought.
This does not make mathematics useless. On the contrary, it explains why mathematics is so powerful. Mathematics is an abstract instrument created by the human mind for expressing relationships.
MATHEMATICS AS A PURE SCIENCE
Mathematics is a pure science because it deals with abstract units and abstract relationships. Only through experience — for example, in physics, chemistry and other sciences — are these abstractions materialized and applied to the physical world.
This is precisely why mathematics is so important.
Without its application, even the deepest thoughts can remain forever within the realm of ideas. A physical relationship that cannot be expressed quantitatively may be difficult or impossible to use for practical purposes.
Mathematics enables us to transform qualitative observations into quantitative relationships. It gives us the possibility of calculating, comparing, predicting and constructing.
But mathematics does not create the physical reality to which it is applied.
Some astrophysicists tend to overuse mathematics in order to demonstrate to others that their ideas are correct. Unfortunately, mathematics cannot verify the ideas themselves. It can clarify them, develop their consequences and reveal relationships that follow from them.
This distinction becomes clear if we consider the history of physics.
For example, in the recent past physicists believed that an atom had a number of electrons moving around its nucleus in orbits. Mathematical descriptions were successfully applied to this model, and physicists were able to calculate energy levels and use the resulting knowledge for practical purposes.
Later, when technological developments made it possible to obtain a more accurate picture of the structure of the atom, physicists arrived at a substantially different image: a nucleus surrounded not by simple planetary-style electron orbits, but by an electron cloud describing probabilities and distributions.
The earlier mathematical description was therefore useful despite the fact that the physical picture associated with it was incomplete.
This example demonstrates an important principle.
Mathematics can explain the amount and relationship of the parts of an entity, or the relationship of one entity to another, and this allows us to use the resulting knowledge for practical purposes even when we do not know the true nature of the phenomenon itself.
The practical success of a mathematical model therefore does not necessarily mean that the model represents the ultimate reality.
It means that the relationships expressed by the model correspond sufficiently well to the relationships observed in Nature within the limits of its application.
MATTER AND ENERGY
All phenomena of Nature consist of matter, which is endowed by energy with a certain mass. In other words, the quality of matter is a manifestation of a certain amount of energy.
Matter should therefore not be considered simply as something isolated and motionless. Its properties reveal themselves through relationships, interactions and changes.
Energy manifests itself through these changes and interactions. The different forms and states of matter therefore represent different manifestations of energy and different relationships between material entities.
Our ability to distinguish one form of matter from another is based upon observable differences. The more precisely we investigate Nature, the more clearly we see that apparently stable objects are composed of processes and interactions taking place at smaller scales.
Nevertheless, our practical descriptions remain dependent upon the scale and purpose of observation.
THE RELATIVITY OF PHYSICAL LAWS
The intensity of natural forces is constantly changing.
In other words, there are no perfect counterbalancing forces in Nature. Nature is always slightly out of balance.
Even when two forces appear to be equal in an experiment, their equality is an approximation. At the molecular and even atomic level, changes continue to occur.
In experimental physics we can often ignore such changes because they do not affect the practical result of the experiment to a substantial degree. We simplify Nature because absolute precision is neither possible nor always necessary.
This means that the laws of physics are not absolute — they are relative.
The question immediately arises:
Relative to what, if everything in Nature is relative?
This question is essential because it concerns not merely the measurement of physical quantities but the very meaning of a physical law.
If everything in Nature is changing, and if every measurement contains some degree of uncertainty, then a law cannot simply be regarded as an absolutely fixed object existing independently of observation.
PHYSICAL LAWS AND THE HUMAN MIND
The laws of physics are relative to the ideas of our mind.
This explains the striking fact that the laws of logic coincide with the laws of Nature. We formulate physical laws through concepts created by our minds, and we then compare the results of measurement with these conceptual structures.
Nature does not present us with ready-made mathematical equations.
We observe phenomena, distinguish relationships, form concepts, assign quantities and construct laws. The resulting laws become instruments with which we interpret subsequent observations.
Let us 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 interprets it, can never be in an absolute state of rest or rectilinear motion, regardless of whatever frame of reference we use relative to which we perform our calculations, because the body is constantly acted upon by external and internal forces.
A material object is never completely isolated from Nature. It participates in interactions, however small they may be. Consequently, the perfectly isolated body described in an idealized physical law is an abstraction.
Second, modern physics attempts to add adjustments and refinements to Newton's laws. These modifications may make the laws easier to apply to different situations, but they do not change the fundamental character of the original idea.
It is important to understand that Newton thought as a philosopher and attempted to formulate abstract ideas to which we compare practical results.
The law is therefore not an exact photograph of Nature. It is an ideal standard against which observations can be compared.
Even if modern physics has introduced the postulate of the existence of different reference frames, it is not in its power to change the very essence of the law — namely, the abstract relationship between motion, rest and the forces acting upon a body.
The important point is that the law describes an idealized situation.
No actual material point can perfectly embody the abstraction. The physical world contains infinitely many interactions, while the human mind deliberately excludes some of them in order to construct a manageable model.
THE IDEA AND THE MEASUREMENT
In other words, the laws of mechanics are Newton's ideas in relation to which all measurements are made within the uncertainty principle.
They never fully coincide with those ideas.
The practical experiment approaches the ideal mathematical or logical formulation but never becomes identical with it. The closer our measurements come to the idealized relationship, the more accurately the law describes the particular situation.
This difference between an idea and an observation is fundamental to understanding the role of mathematics in science.
The mathematical formula is exact within its own logical system. The physical measurement, however, is always connected with material conditions, instruments, limitations and uncertainty.
Therefore, the exactness of mathematics should not be transferred automatically to the physical world.
Mathematics provides an exact language for expressing relationships. Nature provides the material phenomena that we attempt to describe through that language.
The distinction between these two levels allows us to understand why mathematics can be extraordinarily successful without being, by itself, an independent proof of the physical interpretation attached to it.
The task of critical philosophy is therefore not to reject mathematics but to determine what mathematics is actually saying.
It must ask what assumptions stand behind a formula, what physical observations justify those assumptions, what part of the description belongs to Nature itself, and what part has been introduced by the human mind.
Only by maintaining this distinction can we prevent mathematical certainty from being confused with physical certainty.
Mathematics is exact.
Our ideas may be wrong.
Our measurements may be incomplete.
Our physical models may be approximate.
Nature itself remains the final field against which all such constructions must ultimately be compared.
THE DOGMATIC METHOD AND THE LIMITS OF ASTROPHYSICS
Astrophysics, when it uses the dogmatic method, enters the realm of speculation, which is suitable for blind believers—those who are accustomed to accepting statements by authoritative sources for granted without sufficiently questioning the assumptions on which such statements are based. Science should be distinguished from belief. Scientific knowledge begins with observation, experiment, comparison, and the formulation of concepts that help us describe what we observe. When an assumption is presented as an established fact merely because it has been accepted by a scientific community, the boundary between science and dogma becomes blurred.
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 when these theories are treated as unquestionable descriptions of reality. They may represent intellectual models constructed by physicists, but a model and reality are not necessarily identical. A mathematical construction can be internally consistent and still fail to describe the actual nature of things.
The amount of matter can neither be destroyed nor added—the amount of matter is always constant. From our point of view, matter does not simply appear from absolute nothingness and does not disappear into absolute nothingness. It changes its forms, its states, its relationships and its movements. Therefore, when we speak about the Universe, we should distinguish between changes occurring within nature and the supposed creation of nature itself.
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
The idea of the beginning of the Universe goes beyond the limits of physical reality. We can observe consequences that are interpreted as evidence of the so-called Big Bang or of some other primordial phenomenon. We can measure radiation, observe galaxies, calculate their movements and investigate the properties of matter at enormous distances. But we are not able to observe directly what supposedly stands behind the absolute beginning of everything.
This distinction is fundamental. Science deals with facts and observable consequences, not with ideas that cannot be subjected to observation or experiment. Thus, the idea of the absolute beginning of the Universe belongs, in our view, solely to the sphere of religion and metaphysics. Science may investigate what happened at the earliest stage accessible to observation and mathematical reconstruction, but this is not the same as proving the creation of existence itself.
The fact that the Universe expands does not, by itself, prove the idea of the Big Bang as the absolute beginning of everything. Expansion is an observable phenomenon, while the interpretation of this phenomenon is a theoretical construction. In this work we have argued that the Universe both expands and does not expand, depending on the aspect from which we consider the phenomenon. A change in the relative position of cosmic objects may be interpreted as expansion when viewed from one perspective, while from another perspective the same process can be understood as a manifestation of other relationships within the system.
The mistake begins when an interpretation is transformed into an absolute fact. The observation that distances between galaxies change does not automatically answer the question of whether the whole of existence once emerged from nothing. It tells us something about the present relationships between objects and about their history as reconstructed through physical measurements. It does not necessarily tell us what preceded existence itself.
To the above list of scientific speculations can be added the Higgs boson and the theory associated with it, which received the Nobel Prize in 2013. Scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider may indeed have discovered an important phenomenon during their experiments. We do not deny the reality of experimental observations. What we question is the interpretation imposed upon those observations. A phenomenon can be real while the explanation offered for it remains incomplete or may eventually be replaced by another explanation.
Everything that exists in nature exists as substance, as particle or particles, or as mass. In our view, there is no necessity to imagine that particles acquire mass by moving through a mysterious “boson syrup,” as a popular simplified interpretation of the Higgs mechanism might suggest. Any particle that exists physically already exists as something possessing physical properties. Mass is not a mysterious substance poured into an otherwise completely nonexistent object.
The terminology used by physicists is especially important here. If physicists put the term “weight” instead of the concept “mass,” they should, as professionals, know that mass is a fundamental physical concept, whereas weight is relative. Mass characterizes the amount of matter or inertia associated with an object, while weight depends on the gravitational conditions in which the object is located.
Mass may exist without conventional weight. An astronaut in outer space may experience weightlessness while retaining essentially the same mass. The same object can therefore have different weight depending on external conditions. One and the same object on Earth weighs more than it would on Mars because the gravitational field is different. We think that every student of physics knows these simple distinctions.
The distinction between mass and weight is not merely a matter of terminology. It demonstrates how easily an imprecise use of words can lead to an imprecise understanding of nature. Scientific concepts must correspond as accurately as possible to the phenomena they describe. Otherwise, a theoretical construction can begin to live a life of its own, separated from the physical reality that it was originally intended to describe.
PHYSICAL FORMULAS AND HUMAN IDEAS
Physical formulas represent logical ideas that we attribute to nature ourselves. Each time we conduct an experiment, we compare the data obtained in experience with such ideas. Alternatively, we formulate laws according to cause-and-effect relationships and then use those laws as a framework for understanding new observations.
This is why the same laws of physics can be applied throughout the Universe. We assume that nature behaves according to regular relationships that do not depend on our personal wishes or geographical location. Yet the law itself remains a human formulation—a conceptual and mathematical representation of an observed regularity.
Experimental physics is a science developed by human intelligence in order to obtain greater opportunities for understanding and harnessing nature for our own purposes. It gives us enormous practical power. We can construct machines, predict planetary movements, generate electricity, communicate across enormous distances and investigate the smallest components of matter. But the practical success of a physical law does not necessarily mean that the formula represents the ultimate essence of nature.
A formula is a map, not necessarily the territory itself. It allows us to compare one phenomenon with another and to make predictions. The closer the prediction corresponds to experiment, the more useful the formula becomes. But the formula remains an intellectual instrument created by the human mind.
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. We should therefore not automatically regard empty space as an absolute nothingness merely because it does not contain visible matter.
Energy has a dual nature. On one side, kinetic and potential gravitational energy manifests itself as the motion and interaction of objects. On the other hand, cosmic bodies are counteracted by an inversely proportional energy of vacuum. In this conception, the apparent activity of matter cannot be separated completely from the environment in which matter exists.
The vacuum therefore should not be treated simply as an empty stage on which matter performs its movements. Space participates in the overall physical picture. If matter represents one aspect of a system, the surrounding space represents another. The interaction between these aspects may provide a more complete way of understanding the continuous activity observed in the Universe.
At this stage it is worth recalling Newton's third law, which appears to confirm our thesis:
“To every action there is always an 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 templates with which we compare the readings obtained in experiments. They are enormously successful descriptions of observed relationships, but the law itself is not an independent object existing somewhere in nature in the same way as a stone, a planet or an atom.
Nothing that is absolutely perfect exists in nature. We can only compare a practical result received through an experiment with an ideal concept formulated in a law. The practical result will always differ to some degree from the idealized formulation because measurement, observation and physical circumstances are never identical to the abstract mathematical model.
For the sake of clarity, we can interpret Newton's third law in the following way: two opposing forces always strive for equality. Nature constantly produces relationships in which opposing influences counteract one another. Equilibrium is therefore not necessarily a condition of complete inactivity. It may be a dynamic condition in which opposing processes continuously balance one another.
This interpretation is important for understanding energy. If we imagine only one direction of action, we inevitably encounter the problem of explaining why movement continues, why systems change, and why nature does not simply reach an ultimate state of absolute rest. The existence of opposing influences provides another way to look at these processes.
PETER ATKINS AND THE NATURE OF ENERGY
Of all dogmatic scientists, Peter Atkins, a supporter of the theory of thermodynamics, came very close to an explanation of the nature of energy. However, like many dogmatists, he was not able to go beyond academic knowledge and highlighted only the material side of energy.
His work demonstrates the enormous explanatory power of thermodynamics, but at the same time, from our point of view, it reveals the limitations that arise when energy is considered exclusively through material processes. If we describe only the transformations taking place in matter, we may explain how energy changes from one form into another without answering the deeper question of why the process begins at all.
Atkins had no other choice, within his conceptual framework, but to introduce the image of a mystical “demon” into his system to explain the beginning of the process of transition of energy from one state to another. The famous Maxwell's demon is not literally a supernatural being, of course; it is an intellectual device used to examine the meaning and consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the image is revealing because it illustrates the difficulty of explaining the origin and direction of processes solely through the material description of the system.
It is not necessary, in our view, to have a “demon” in order to explain the beginning of atomic activity if we take into account the relationship between gravity and the state of atoms. An increase in the force of gravity deactivates, while a decrease in the force of gravity activates, the excited state of atoms. Thus, what appears to be an independent activity of matter may be related to changes in the gravitational environment.
Atkins developed a linear theory explaining the change of the state of energy from a certain point in time—identified in the conventional cosmological picture with the Big Bang—to a certain state of calmness of the cold Universe in the future. For clarity, we can represent his theory as a line progressing from point A to point B.
But such a dogmatic approach does not solve the problem of the beginning of the Universe or its limits. If we say that the Universe began at point A, we immediately face a fundamental question: what existed before point A? If the answer is “nothing,” another question follows: how could anything come from nothing?
How could a microscopic Universe exist in empty space when there had not yet been any space? How could such a Universe exist in some kind of empty time before the beginning of real time? These statements appear to us to be less physical than philosophical. They attempt to describe conditions outside the very framework in which physical measurement is possible.
If there was no space, then the phrase “where did the Universe exist?” becomes meaningless. If there was no time, then the phrase “what happened before the beginning?” also becomes problematic. Therefore, the attempt to extend physical concepts beyond their domain of applicability may produce paradoxes that are created by language itself rather than by nature.
Such statements are, in our view, nothing but a figment of imagination when they are presented as established physical facts. Even King Solomon and, later, Aristotle, around 350 BC, maintained that everything in nature goes in never-ending circles. Nature appears to us not as a single straight line with an absolute beginning and an absolute end, but as an endless succession of transformations.
Unfortunately, Atkins remained blind to what we regard as the obvious signs of nature. The cycles of birth, development, transformation and decay can be observed everywhere. Day follows night, seasons follow one another, stars are formed and transformed, matter changes its state, and physical processes continuously replace one another.
The existence of cycles does not necessarily mean that every individual structure has existed eternally in its present form. A galaxy can have a history, a star can have a beginning and an end, and an organism can be born and die. But the transformation of individual forms should not automatically be confused with the creation or destruction of existence itself.
ENTROPY AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE
In this case we can rely on the second law of thermodynamics. Hot matter of the highest quality, doing work, is degraded to a lower quality by cooling through dispersion. Some astrophysicists maintain that the whole period of existence of the Universe since the Big Bang until today is a process of reducing the quality of matter, which they associate with increasing entropy.
In this respect, some interpretations make it appear as though energy gradually dissipates from 100% toward nothing. We regard such a conclusion as an absolute absurdity. Energy cannot simply disappear because a physical system performs work. It changes its form and becomes distributed differently.
The second law of thermodynamics describes the direction of certain physical processes. It does not necessarily mean that existence itself is gradually being transformed into nothingness. The degradation of energy available for a particular kind of work is not identical to the disappearance of energy as such.
This distinction is essential. When hot matter cools, the energy associated with an organized process may become distributed among a much larger number of particles and degrees of freedom. From the point of view of performing useful work, this represents a loss of availability. But this should not be confused with the annihilation of energy itself.
Of course, if we consider the Universe as a form composed of galaxies, we can talk about processes of devolution. Galaxies were formed in time, as was every form in nature. A galaxy has a beginning as a particular structure because the matter from which it consists has been organized into a specific configuration.
But the formation and transformation of structures do not prove that the totality of nature itself was created from nothing. The form can appear and disappear while the underlying physical substance continues to participate in other transformations.
For example, on the Sun, heavy atoms can decay into lighter ones, resulting in the formation of large quantities of helium and hydrogen through various nuclear processes. The Sun therefore represents a gigantic natural laboratory in which matter continuously changes its form.
Some astrophysicists mistakenly claim that the Sun produces energy because of increased gravitational pressure. From our point of view, this explanation confuses the conditions under which processes occur with the energy transformations themselves. Thermodynamics teaches us that the availability of energy for performing work changes as work is performed. Therefore, one should carefully distinguish between the source of a process, the conditions enabling that process, and the form in which energy becomes manifested.
The Sun demonstrates that matter is not static. It is continuously undergoing transformation. Atoms interact, nuclei change, radiation is emitted, particles move, and enormous quantities of energy are transferred through different processes. The fact that these transformations occur does not require us to assume that energy is being created from absolute nothingness at every moment.
THERMODYNAMICS AND THE CONTINUOUS MOTION OF NATURE
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, matter doing work moves from a higher state of entropy to a lower state, but not vice versa, within the formulation adopted here. That is why we believe Peter Atkins is one of the most prominent of the dogmatic physicists.
Although he did not create a theory that explains the ultimate reason for constant motion in the Universe, thermodynamics, in our view, does not overstep the bounds of experience to the same extent as theories that attempt to describe an absolute beginning of existence. It remains closely connected with observable processes: heating, cooling, work, transformation and the redistribution of energy.
The strength of thermodynamics lies precisely in this connection with experience. We can observe matter becoming hotter or colder. We can measure work. We can observe changes in pressure, volume and temperature. We can calculate energy transfers. These are physical facts from which mathematical relationships can be constructed.
The difficulty begins when these relationships are extended into statements about the ultimate origin or final destiny of everything that exists. A law that successfully describes processes within the Universe does not automatically become a metaphysical explanation for the existence of the Universe itself.
This is the boundary that must be respected. Physics can tell us how certain processes behave under particular conditions. It can establish relationships between measurable quantities. But it cannot simply assume that because a mathematical model can be extrapolated beyond the region of observation, the extrapolated result must correspond to physical reality.
The Universe may therefore be understood not as a straight line extending from absolute creation to absolute extinction, but as a system of continuous transformations. Matter changes its form, objects appear and disappear, stars are born and transformed, galaxies develop, energy changes its manifestation, and physical relationships remain active.
The misunderstanding of the fact that space is something real may disappear after a detailed study of the nature of gravitation. If space is not merely an empty container but an active aspect of the physical system, then our understanding of gravity, energy and motion must also be reconsidered.
The next step is therefore to examine gravitation itself. Instead of beginning with an abstract assumption about the origin of the Universe, we should begin with the phenomena that are accessible to observation. By studying how bodies interact, how their movements change, and how space participates in these relationships, we may come closer to understanding the nature of energy.
The question is not merely how matter moves. The deeper question is why matter moves at all, why movement does not simply cease, and what role is played by the space surrounding every physical object.
It is to these questions that we now proceed.
EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF GRAVITATION
1. KEPLER'S CONCEPT OF PLANETARY MOTION
The great German astronomer John Kepler (1571–1630) believed that the motion of the planets continues as long as there is a force causing their movements. In his search for the physical cause of planetary motion, Kepler did not regard the planets as bodies moving through space for no reason. He tried to find a material or immaterial mechanism that could continuously maintain their movement.
Kepler assumed that the Sun rotates on its axis in the same direction in which the planets revolve around it. Later, this was confirmed by observations. According to his idea, the rotating Sun emits immaterial waves that capture the planets and force them to take part in a circular motion. In this conception, the Sun is not merely a passive body around which the planets happen to move. Its rotation actively influences the surrounding space and produces the force responsible for planetary movement.
2. KEPLER'S UNDERSTANDING OF GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION
At the same time, Kepler was right about the existence of a force of gravity. He said that "two separate bodies are drawn to one another like two magnets." This comparison expressed his conviction that the attraction between celestial bodies was a real physical relationship and not simply an unexplained characteristic of matter.
Kepler's description of the cause of planetary motion around the Sun, made at the beginning of the seventeenth century, was later put aside after Newton presented his theory of gravity. Newton established a mathematical law describing gravitational attraction with extraordinary precision, but the deeper physical cause of gravity remained unexplained.
3. NEWTON'S THEORY AND THE UNEXPLAINED CAUSE OF GRAVITY
Newton could not explain the ultimate 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 ideas of Kepler and Newtonian gravity to their logical conclusion. We will try to look at the Solar System not only as a collection of separate bodies held together by an abstract mathematical force, but as a system in which the movement, rotation, mass and gravitational influence of all its constituent parts are interconnected.
4. THE SUN, EARTH, AND THE MECHANISM OF ORBITAL MOTION
Let us take a closer look at the Solar System. The Sun rotates on its axis and also influences the rotation of the planets around their own axes while simultaneously causing them to revolve around itself. The planets do not exist independently of the Sun. Their movements are determined by their relationship with the central star and by the gravitational forces acting throughout the Solar System.
The Sun moves Earth around itself in a certain orbit using the gravitational force, which depends upon their mutual masses. The kinetic energy of Earth tends to direct it away from the star, while the gravitational attraction of the Sun continually acts upon it and keeps it within its orbit. As a result of these opposing tendencies, Earth does not simply fall into the Sun, nor does it escape into distant space. It remains in a continuing orbital movement.
If there were a rigid connection between the star and its planet, Earth would revolve in complete unison with the Sun. Such a mechanical connection does not in fact exist, and the gravitational forces of the star are not able to produce such a rigid effect.
The planets of the Solar System therefore lag behind the rotational speed of the Sun, and we are deceived by the apparent simplicity of imagining that our planet revolves around a completely static Sun.
In reality, the relationship is more complicated. Earth orbits the Sun with a certain delay relative to the movement of the central star. The Sun rotates, Earth rotates, and Earth simultaneously travels around the Sun. All these movements are connected with the distribution of matter and with gravitational interaction.
5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORBITAL AND AXIAL ROTATION
The question then arises: where does the energy come to as a result of this delay? If there is a difference between the movement of the central body and the movement of the bodies surrounding it, this difference must have some physical consequence.
The lagging behind of Earth affects its spin around its axis; there is a loss of efficiency coefficient due to excessive mass. In this way, the author connects the orbital movement of Earth with its axial rotation and with the distribution of mass within the planet.
6. THE MOON, VENUS, AND THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION
Similarly, the Moon always turns one of its sides toward Earth. This phenomenon demonstrates, how gravitational interaction can influence not only the orbital movement of a celestial body but also its rotation.
Venus would possibly turn one of its sides toward 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, in our view, confirms the fact that one and the same cause that makes the elliptic orbits of the planets also tilts Earth and the other planets at particular angles.
This cause is called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Thus gravity is considered not merely as a force responsible for keeping a planet in orbit, but as a universal influence capable of affecting the orientation, rotation and general configuration of celestial bodies.
7. THE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE OF THE MILKY WAY
In its turn, the gravitational force of our galaxy holds the Solar System at a certain distance from the center of the Milky Way. The influence of the galaxy stretches the orbits of the planets of the Solar System and makes them oval.
The Solar System therefore exists within a larger gravitational environment and cannot be considered in complete isolation from the galaxy surrounding it.
8. THE UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF MASS ON EARTH
A detailed study of Earth, according to this line of reasoning, clearly shows that the Northern Hemisphere has more dry land above sea level than the Southern Hemisphere. Consequently, it has more mass concentrated above sea level.
The distribution of this mass is therefore not perfectly uniform between the two hemispheres. This difference in the distribution of matter becomes important, in our view, of the relationship between Earth and the gravitational forces acting upon it.
9. GRAVITY, THE EARTH'S AXIS, AND THE SEASONS
The gravitational force of the galaxy attracts Earth toward itself, stretching its orbit and thereby changing the tilt angle of its axis. The Northern Hemisphere, containing more mass, tilts toward the Sun when Earth is farther from it.
As a result, according to this interpretation, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere increases and summer comes.
When the gravitational force of the Sun takes Earth to the opposite side, away from the center of the galaxy, the heavier Northern Hemisphere is deflected toward the opposite side. This changes the tilt angle of Earth and brings winter to the North and summer to the South.
Thus the changing relationship between the Sun, Earth and the gravitational influence of the galaxy is proposed as an explanation for the seasonal changes experienced on our planet.
10. THE EARTH AS A CHANGING AND LIVING PLANET
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 in the sense that it is continuously changing, and its physical appearance has never remained exactly the same throughout its history.
For billions of years its shape and internal structure have been changing under the influence of geological and gravitational processes.
The Earth is therefore presented not as an unchanging object, but as a dynamic celestial body whose surface, interior and climatic conditions have undergone continuous transformation.
11. THE EARTH'S CORE AND GEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
The core of Earth is very hard and condensed and is enclosed in liquid magma. The core of Earth is always on the move; it does not remain in exactly the same position relative to the center of mass of the entire planet.
Since the core is extremely massive, it tends to move backwards to some extent and turns with some delay relative to the movement of Earth as a whole.
This movement of the core, probably, perturbs the surrounding magma. The core therefore does not simply occupy a passive position inside the planet. Its movement produces disturbances in the liquid material surrounding it.
This conclusion gives us a hint that the geological activity of our planet is produced by the core, which creates turbulence in the magma and exerts pressure on the crust.
Volcanic eruptions and the influence of different gravitational forces of the Solar System and nearby stars then contribute to changes in the shape and physical condition of Earth.
We therefore connect processes occurring deep inside Earth with forces acting on the planet from the surrounding universe. Earth is regarded as a dynamic body in which internal movements and external gravitational influences constantly interact.
12. GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The change in mass of the Southern Hemisphere millions of years ago created conditions for the development of different forms of life due to warming. At the same time, the Northern Hemisphere entered a phase of an ice age.
In this picture, climatic conditions were connected with the distribution of mass on Earth and with changes in the gravitational relationships acting upon the planet.
Dinosaurs were very massive animals; they needed a large amount of heat and food for survival. A harsh climate and prolonged changes in temperature and available food could therefore have had a profound effect upon their existence.
13. THE EXTINCTION OF THE DINOSAURS
The severe climate of the ice age in the Northern Hemisphere affected the dinosaurs and, probably, contributed to their extinction.
Why do many scientists tie the extinction of the dinosaurs to the collision of a huge asteroid or comet with Earth about 60 million years ago? We question whether such an impact alone can explain the enormous changes that occurred on Earth and the preservation of the biological remains that have been discovered.
14. CATASTROPHE AND THE PRESERVATION OF FOSSILS
Preservation of biological remains, to our mind, is only possible as a result of an unexpected incident that covers them rapidly and creates favorable conditions for their transformation into fossils.
Found dinosaur remains are often associated with some kind of catastrophe: an asteroid impact, volcanic eruption or another sudden geological event.
Otherwise, we assume, their preservation would be difficult to explain. Under natural conditions, with direct atmospheric impact, biological organisms gradually decay and their material is returned to the environment.
Eventually their remains are broken down into smaller components and, supposedly, into atoms. Therefore, the discovery of preserved remains is interpreted as evidence that an unusual event interrupted the normal process of decomposition.
15. THE BIRTH AND FORMATION OF STARS
The formation of any star begins, in our conception, with a rotation of a mass of matter. This rotating mass first begins to attract more massive particles toward itself, leaving lighter particles behind.
As the star develops, it continues to retain around itself the remaining mass of particles to the extent that the force of gravity permits.
The formation of a star, therefore, produces a redistribution of matter in the surrounding region of space. Some matter becomes concentrated in the central body, while other material remains in its vicinity.
The gravitational influence of the newly forming star establishes a region within which matter can be retained.
16. GRAVITATIONAL BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STARS
The area depleted of matter as a result of the formation of the star is balanced by the gravity of neighboring stars. Every star, according to this idea, does not exist in isolation. Its gravitational influence interacts with the gravitational influences of other stars.
There is therefore a boundary of gravitational equality that each star has with neighboring stars. At such a boundary, the attracting force of one star is balanced by the oppositely acting attraction of neighboring stars.
The location of the resultant gravitational boundary is considered to be the region of the galaxy where the attracting force of one star is balanced by the force of attraction of surrounding stars.
17. VACUUM CONTACT AND OPPOSING ENERGY FLOWS
At this boundary, we propose the existence of a field of vacuum contact of oppositely directed flows of energy.
In this conception, what we call empty space is not necessarily completely empty. Rather, it may represent a region in which opposing gravitational or energetic influences meet and balance each other.
Spacecraft use these gravitational flows to gain speed by circling Earth and eventually leaving the region of gravitational attraction of the planet.
The movement of a spacecraft through a gravitational field can therefore be viewed as an interaction with the existing distribution of forces surrounding a celestial body.
18. GRAVITY AS THE FORCE HOLDING THE UNIVERSE TOGETHER
We maintain that every planet with its satellites, every planetary system and every galaxy deprives space of matter and creates vacuum areas as a result of the formation of cosmic bodies.
The formation of celestial bodies consequently produces both concentrations of matter and corresponding regions depleted of matter.
Thus, in our point of view, the gravitational pull holds the Universe together. Gravity is not regarded merely as an attraction between two isolated objects. Instead, it forms a universal network of relationships connecting planets, stars, planetary systems and galaxies.
19. THE FORMATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Let us take a closer look at the formation of the Solar System.
At a time when the mass of the forming star ceases to attract constituent matter as a result of the establishment of counterbalancing forces, the remaining matter is left around the star and held by gravitational forces.
This remaining material does not immediately disappear. It remains in the region surrounding the central star, where gravitational forces continue to act upon it.
Over time, portions of this material begin gathering into more massive objects. Small concentrations of matter attract additional matter and gradually become increasingly substantial bodies.
20. ALTERNATING RINGS OF MATTER AND VACUUM
The process therefore results in the creation of alternating rings of vacuum and matter around the star. Regions containing matter become separated from regions where matter has been depleted.
The planets begin appearing within these concentrations.
The Solar System can consequently be understood as the result of a process in which matter has been gathered into particular regions while other regions have become comparatively empty.
21. SATURN'S RINGS AS AN EXAMPLE OF PLANETARY FORMATION
A similar process can easily be observed if we take a closer look at Saturn and its rings.
The rings provide, in our point of view, an example of matter that has remained in orbit around a planet without having completely formed into larger bodies.
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.
The rings of Saturn can therefore be regarded as an intermediate stage in the formation of celestial bodies. Some of the material has gathered into moons, while other material continues to circle the planet in the form of countless smaller particles.
22. THE EARLY APPEARANCE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
What can be confirmed or refuted of a 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 appearance.
Almost every circle of matter around the star was eventually formed into a planet with its moons, while a region of emptiness or vacuum was left behind.
In this way, the present structure of the Solar System can be interpreted as the final result of a much earlier process of redistribution and concentration of matter.
The planets represent regions where material became concentrated, while the relatively empty spaces between planetary orbits represent areas from which matter was removed or redistributed.
23. EARTH'S FORMATION AND GRAVITATIONAL SEPARATION OF MATTER
Earth, due to its spherical shape, by rotating around its axis and through centrifugal force, collects matter circling within the zone of its gravitational influence toward itself.
Material surrounding Earth is therefore gradually separated according to its properties and its relationship with gravity.
Heavy particles form the solid or molten portions of the planet, while the lightest particles form the atmosphere.
The internal structure and external envelope of Earth can thus be understood, in our point of view, as the result of gravitational separation and the different densities of matter.
24. VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE FORMS OF MATTER
We are accustomed to consider matter as something tangible and directly perceptible. We can touch solid matter, see many forms of matter, and feel its physical resistance.
Yet matter can also exist in forms that are not directly perceptible to our senses.
Air, for example, consists of gases and is therefore composed of matter, but it is transparent to us. We normally do not see the individual particles of air even though they surround us constantly.
Thus matter divided into sufficiently small particles becomes imperceptible to our sensitive organs; in other words, it becomes invisible.
The same distinction between visible and invisible matter can be extended, in our point of view, to the structure of the Universe. What appears to us as empty space may contain matter or energetic processes that are simply beyond the direct sensitivity of our organs.
25. ENERGY AS THE ORGANIZER OF COSMIC MATTER
The energy of the Universe assembles matter into celestial bodies and, due to differences in forces, gives it various densities.
The same universal process therefore produces an enormous variety of structures: stars, planets, moons, rings, atmospheres and other forms of matter.
This is the reason for the diversity of the Universe. Matter is continuously gathered, separated, concentrated and redistributed under the influence of different forces.
The celestial bodies that we observe are therefore not isolated objects but parts of a continuous cosmic process in which energy and matter interact.
26. THE INTERCONNECTION OF MATTER, ENERGY, AND GRAVITATION
From this point of view, gravitation becomes more than a mathematical relationship between masses.
It becomes a universal organizing force that gathers matter into larger bodies, maintains the motion of celestial bodies, influences their rotation and connects individual cosmic systems into one universal whole.
The rotation of stars, the movement of planets, the formation of moons, the existence of planetary rings and the distribution of matter throughout galaxies can consequently be considered different manifestations of one general process.
The Universe, in this conception, is not a collection of unrelated objects but an interconnected system in which matter, energy and gravitational forces continuously interact.
27. THE PHYSICAL MEANING OF EMPTY SPACE
The question of the true nature of gravitation therefore remains connected with the question of what we call empty space.
If space can be depleted of matter during the formation of celestial bodies, and if boundaries can arise where opposing influences balance each other, then the apparent emptiness surrounding the planets and stars may itself have a physical significance.
The vacuum is therefore not necessarily absolute nothingness. In our conception, it may represent a region produced by the redistribution of matter and the interaction of opposing flows of energy.
28. KEPLER AND NEWTON RECONSIDERED
Kepler's old intuition about an active influence spreading from the rotating Sun can therefore be reconsidered alongside Newton's mathematical description of gravity.
The purpose is not to abandon the gravitational law, but to search for a physical interpretation that might explain what produces the attraction and how it operates through space.
Kepler attempted to identify the physical mechanism behind planetary motion, while Newton established the mathematical relationship governing gravitational attraction. Our attempt is to bring these two approaches together and extend them toward a more complete explanation.
29. THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS AN INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
In this way, the Solar System can be viewed as a living example of the universal relationship between matter, motion and energy.
The Sun, planets and satellites continuously interact, while the larger gravitational environment of the Milky Way influences the entire system.
The formation of celestial bodies can then be imagined as a continuing process in which matter is collected where gravitational attraction dominates and space becomes relatively depleted where opposing gravitational influences establish equilibrium.
The Universe consequently contains both concentrations of matter and regions of apparent emptiness, and these two conditions are inseparably connected.
30. GRAVITY AS A UNIVERSAL ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE
The energy of the Universe assembles matter into increasingly complex structures, while differences in gravitational influence determine their movements, densities and relationships.
From the smallest particles to planets, stars and galaxies, the same general principle of interaction connects the parts into a whole.
Gravity therefore appears in our conception as a universal organizing principle. It is involved in the formation of celestial bodies, their movements through space, their relationships with neighboring bodies and the larger structure of the Universe.
31. THE NATURE OF GRAVITATION AND THE NATURE OF ENERGY
Thus the nature of gravitation, in our view, is ultimately inseparable from the nature of energy itself.
Gravitation is presented as an organizing force that gives structure to matter, maintains the motion of celestial bodies and connects individual cosmic systems into one universal whole.
The Universe is therefore understood as a continuous interaction between matter, energy, movement and gravitational influence. Stars, planets, moons and galaxies are different manifestations of this universal process.
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.
What appears to us as separate and independent objects may therefore be understood as interconnected parts of a single cosmic system. The movement of one body is related to the gravitational environment created by others, while the formation of matter and the creation of apparent vacuum regions are parts of the same universal process.
In this way, the search for the nature of gravitation leads us beyond the simple observation that bodies attract one another. It leads us toward the broader question of how matter is organized, how energy produces movement, and how the enormous variety of the Universe can arise from the interaction of these fundamental forces.
EINSTEIN AND THE CONFLICT WITH NEWTONIAN GRAVITY
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.
ACCELERATED MOTION AND GRAVITY
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.
EINSTEIN'S STRUGGLE WITH THE PROBLEM OF GRAVITY
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.29
THE EARTH AND THE SUN: A MODEL OF PLANETARY MOTION
In order to understand his new view of gravity, let us consider a prototypical planet such as Earth, which revolves around a star such as the Sun.
NEWTON'S GRAVITATIONAL "GRIP"
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.
EINSTEIN AND CURVED SPACE-TIME
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.
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION IN NEWTON'S THEORY
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.
THE MYSTERY OF ACTION AT A DISTANCE
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.
NEWTON'S OWN DOUBTS ABOUT GRAVITATION
He admitted:
"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 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".
ANALYSIS OF GRAVITATION AND VACUUM
In the process of our analysis, we have used the philosophical knowledge of the most advanced thinkers in the history of mankind, together with the achievements of modern astronomy and science. On the basis of this knowledge, we have arrived at the following conclusion.
When the Earth, using gravitational pull, attracts its constituent matter, it creates a vacuum above the atmosphere. We understand this vacuum as an important component in the relationship between the Earth and the bodies surrounding it. In our view, the Earth retains the Moon in its orbit with the help of this vacuum.
It is important for us to emphasize the distinction that follows from our understanding of this process. We do not consider gravity to act through vacuum, as Newton believed, but rather by means of vacuum. For us, vacuum is not simply the absence of matter. We understand it as an immaterial component of the system through which gravitational interaction is maintained.
The Moon, in its turn, exerts a gravitational influence upon the Earth. Because of its kinetic energy, it spreads and influences the surrounding atmosphere, and we associate this process with the phenomenon of tides. Thus, we cannot consider the Earth and Moon as completely independent objects. We regard them as components of one system in which matter and vacuum continuously interact.
For example, when we suck air out of a bottle, the resulting vacuum begins to draw the tongue and lips inside. We can use this familiar phenomenon to illustrate what we mean by the action of vacuum. In an analogous way, we understand the vacuum of the Earth as acting upon the Moon. It seems to “suck upon” the Moon and retain it at a certain distance from the Earth.
Therefore, we conclude that the vacuum of the Earth is balanced by the vacuum of the Sun. We do not regard the Earth as existing in isolation. It is part of the Solar System, and we understand the gravitational and vacuum relationships within this system as determining the movements of its constituent bodies.
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM “VACUUM”
We now consider it necessary to define more precisely what we mean by the term “vacuum.”
We define vacuum as a rarefied area of space, largely emptied of matter, which nevertheless, to some extent, contains electrons and microparticles. Therefore, when we speak about vacuum, we do not necessarily mean an absolutely empty region in which absolutely nothing exists. We understand it as relative emptiness in which a certain quantity of particles may remain or move.
This distinction is essential to our conception. We regard vacuum itself as immaterial, while recognizing that the region we call cosmic vacuum can contain matter in extremely small quantities. Thus, for us, the absence of ordinary matter does not mean absolute nothingness.
NOTE
We should note that, in our conception, the solar vacuum does not act directly on objects in space. If it did so, the Sun would draw the asteroids of the Kepler asteroid belt directly toward itself, since the mass of any individual asteroid is insignificant compared with the mass of the planets of the Solar System.
We therefore understand the Solar vacuum as holding the planets with the help of the void that they create around themselves by spinning. We attach particular importance to the rotation of matter because we regard it as participating in the formation of the surrounding vacuum. The planets do not merely occupy space; their movement contributes to the conditions that maintain their position within the Solar System.
EMPIRICAL PROOF 1: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
As the first empirical illustration of our conception, we consider the International Space Station (ISS). Since its launch, the ISS has been located in the vacuum above the Earth. Although the Earth itself moves in an approximately circular orbit around the Sun, the ISS remains approximately at the same distance from the Earth and travels together with the Earth around the Sun.
For us, this observation brings home the fact that the ISS exists within a vacuum created by the planet Earth. We regard that vacuum as local and as a direct consequence of the Earth's rotation around its axis.
The important point for us is that the ISS does not simply float independently in an unlimited and completely empty space. We consider it connected with the Earth as part of a larger system. Therefore, we believe that the Earth, its atmosphere, the ISS, and the surrounding vacuum should be considered together.
EMPIRICAL PROOF 2: THE GRAVITATIONAL-ASSIST MANEUVER
As a second illustration, we can consider the gravitational-assist maneuver used in spaceflight. A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity relative to the Sun by allowing the spacecraft to enter and leave the gravitational field of a planet.
We know that the spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while it escapes the planet's gravitational pull, which is approximately the same in the corresponding stages of the maneuver. However, because the planet itself is orbiting the Sun, we also recognize that the spacecraft is affected by the planet's orbital motion during the maneuver.
To increase its speed relative to the Sun, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet, taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy. To decrease its speed, it flies against the movement of the planet. We therefore understand the maneuver as an interaction in which the kinetic energies of the bodies remain subject to the conservation principle.
A slingshot maneuver can consequently be used to change both the spacecraft's trajectory and its velocity relative to the Sun. For us, this demonstrates that the movement of a spacecraft cannot be considered completely independently from the movements of the celestial bodies surrounding it.
VACUUM AS AN IMMATERIAL AND CONSTANT FORCE
In our conception, vacuum is not modified merely because it contains little or no matter. We regard it as immaterial, and we understand its force as constant.
Although cosmic vacuum contains a certain amount of matter and we recognize that there is no absolute vacuum in nature, we nevertheless maintain that it does not cease to be emptiness in the relative sense. We understand it as a region in which a certain volume of particles can remain or move.
For us, it is important to distinguish between the material content of space and the vacuum itself. Matter can change its position, concentration, velocity, and state. Vacuum, in our interpretation, is the immaterial and constant component of the system.
We understand solar gravitation as acting with equal force on the planets of the Solar System. In our interpretation, the constant force of vacuum, vis activa, is opposed by the changeable moving force of matter, vis passiva, or vis inertia.
We divide the moving force of matter into kinetic and potential energies. We therefore characterize matter by continual movement and changes in its state, while we regard vacuum as the constant and immaterial component that provides the opposing force.
VACUUM AND MATTER AS TWO PARTS OF ONE SYSTEM
We now arrive at one of the central conclusions of our analysis: vacuum and matter are two parts of the same system.
We consider our neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, as well as any other galaxy, to be connected with the Milky Way by means of vacuum. When the energies of the components diminish with time, we understand the constituent matter begins to move away from the centers of galaxies into the field of action of their own vacuum.
Thus, we can say that the matter of Andromeda approaches the Milky Way, while, as a vacuum-matter system, it remains in the same place. We explain this apparent contradiction by saying that the expansion of matter occurs within the field of its own vacuum.
We can therefore say that Andromeda is approaching us and, at the same time, is not approaching us. For us, everything depends on how we view the phenomenon: whether we consider only the movement of matter or the complete system consisting of matter together with its surrounding vacuum.
We consider this distinction between the material component and the complete vacuum-matter system fundamental to our interpretation of cosmic motion.
GRAVITATION AS AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ROTATION AND VACUUM
We define gravitation as a process resulting from the interaction between the rotational movement of matter and the force of vacuum counteracting that movement.
We do not regard matter as completely independent of its surroundings. Its rotation, in our conception, creates conditions in which vacuum becomes associated with the material body. We understand the resulting relationship as determining the position and movement of celestial objects.
When two galaxies merge, we understand this as the creation of one system from what previously appeared to be two separate components. In such a case, a permutation of the parts occurs, while the whole is not disturbed.
Thus, when two galaxies merge, the apparent separation of the two systems disappears, but the overall system continues to exist. The individual components change their relationships, but we maintain that the whole remains subject to the same fundamental principle of interaction between matter and vacuum.
THE APPARENT EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
We recognize that some distant galaxies may no longer exist in the form in which we see them. They may have faded, merged with other galaxies, or been dispersed by black holes. At the same time, we cannot see some young galaxies because their light is not visible to us.
For this reason, we believe that we may be deceived by an illusion of the expansion of the Universe. We see the fading glow of dying galaxies and may mistakenly conclude that they are moving away from us. Likewise, because of the enormous distances involved in astronomy, what we observe is not necessarily the present condition of a distant celestial body but an image of its earlier state.
Therefore, from our point of view, the Inflation theory is another absurdity. We maintain that galaxies are expanding within their own vacuum, and they may also move away from or toward one another as physical objects. But when we consider the complete system of objects together with vacuum, we conclude that the Universe always takes its place and remains in a state of rest.
At this point in our analysis, we arrive at the question of the nature of space itself.
OUR DETERMINATION OF SPACE
1. SPACE AS PERCEIVED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN
We understand that the human brain interprets space as infinite emptiness, to some extent filled with our Universe. When we look into the heavens, we perceive an apparently limitless expanse containing stars, planets, galaxies, and other celestial objects.
However, we do not necessarily conclude from this perception that space exists independently as a material or physical substance.
2. SPACE IS CREATED BY GRAVITATION
We maintain that space is not something that exists per se. According to our conception, it is created by gravity.
Space objects empty their surrounding areas by way of rotation, thereby creating vacuum. Thus, we do not regard the rotation of matter merely as movement within an already existing space. We consider it part of the process through which the relative emptiness that we perceive as space is created.
3. SPACE AS RELATIVE EMPTINESS
We therefore define space as relative emptiness, to some extent filled with electrons and particles of matter.
If vacuum were absolutely empty, we would not be able to see space objects. We understand there to be an electromagnetic connection between planets, stars, and other celestial bodies and our visual organs. Consequently, what we call empty space is not absolutely empty in the practical sense.
4. SPACE IS NOT A THING
We maintain that space is not a thing. It does not exist as an independent object; nevertheless, it is presented to us as emptiness filled with objects.
We distinguish between objects because there are distances between them. These distances appear to us as space. Thus, in our view, what we call space is inseparable from the objects whose relationships make it perceptible.
5. THE LIMITS OF RELATIVE VACUUM
We understand relative vacuum as being presented to us only within the limits of our Universe. Beyond our Universe, according to our conception, there are no space objects; consequently, there is nothingness there.
We therefore distinguish between relative emptiness and nothingness. Relative emptiness exists between material objects within the Universe, whereas nothingness would lie beyond the Universe because there would be no objects through which it could be perceived.
6. EMPTINESS AND NOTHINGNESS
We maintain that emptiness can only be perceived by our minds because of the existence of space objects. Nothingness cannot be perceived by our senses, neither negatively nor positively, since there are no electrons there that can affect our visual organs.
Therefore, we understand our perception of empty space as ultimately dependent upon the existence of matter. We see emptiness because material objects surround it and because electromagnetic signals connect those objects with our senses.
7. SPACE AND PERPETUAL MOTION
We maintain that space is possible as a result of the perpetual motion of matter. If there were no motion, we conclude that space would be completely filled with substance.
Motion separates matter from matter and produces relative emptiness between material bodies. Without continual movement, we believe that the distinction between objects and the surrounding vacuum would disappear.
8. MATTER AS ATOMS
We understand the substance in our Universe to exist in the form of matter, that is, atoms.
For the same reason, we maintain that space is present because there is matter in the form of space objects. Stars, planets, galaxies, and other bodies consist of matter, and their motion and distribution create the relative emptiness that we perceive as space.
9. ABSOLUTE EMPTINESS CANNOT EXIST
We maintain that absolute emptiness cannot exist since there is nothing material in it. Everything that exists, in our conception, does so only in the form of matter.
Relative emptiness, on the other hand, is presented to us as the distance between objects in space. Therefore, when we speak of empty space, we are describing the interval between material bodies rather than an independent substance existing separately from them.
10. SPACE AS AN ABSOLUTE CONCEPT
We believe that space is treated as something absolute, existing independently on its own, only for the sake of experimental physics.
In ordinary perception, we naturally imagine space as an enormous container into which matter is placed. In our conception, however, we reverse this relationship: matter and its movement produce the conditions under which space is perceived.
11. MATHEMATICAL DIVISION OF MATTER
In mathematical terms, we understand that an object can be divided ad infinitum. Otherwise, the space that it takes would disappear completely.
In practical terms, however, we recognize that we can divide an object only to a certain extent. We therefore distinguish between mathematical division and physical division. Mathematics allows us to continue the process conceptually without end, whereas physical matter has practical limitations concerning the extent to which it can be divided.
12. THE UNIVERSE AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE
We maintain that the Universe, just as our planet Earth, our Solar System, or our galaxy, must be a collective whole surrounded by vacuum.
We understand the vacuum as being created by rarefying matter in one place and gathering it into celestial bodies in another. Matter therefore becomes concentrated into stars, planets, galaxies, and other objects, while the regions between them become relatively empty.
Thus, we regard the existence of celestial bodies and the existence of vacuum as inseparable. For us, the Universe consists not merely of matter but of the relationship between concentrated matter and the surrounding vacuum.
13. NOTHING CAN ESCAPE THE UNIVERSE
In practical terms, we maintain that nothing can escape from the Universe.
The first proof, in our argument, is the Law of Conservation of Energy. The second proof is the Law of Universal Gravitation.
Those scientists who maintain that galaxies fly away from each other into nothingness, in our view, go against these two universal laws. If energy is conserved and universal gravitation acts throughout the Universe, then we conclude that the complete system cannot simply disappear into an external nothingness.
RELATIVE MOTION AND THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
From experimental physics, we know that when something moves, changes, or expands, it does so relative to something else.
We therefore ask an important question: relative to what does the Universe expand if it includes everything in itself?
If the Universe contains all matter, all galaxies, all stars, all planets, and everything that physically exists, then, according to our reasoning, there is apparently nothing outside it against which its expansion can be measured.
In accordance with the Universal Law of Gravitation, we understand the attraction of space objects to one another as occurring throughout the entire Universe. We therefore believe that a person who says that neighboring galaxies are approaching us while distant galaxies are receding from us goes against the universal character of the laws of physics.
Such an interpretation would be as if gravity acted only within the limits of our neighboring galaxies while the rest of the Universe existed according to completely different laws. We cannot accept such a division if the Universal Law of Gravitation is truly universal.
THE BALANCE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SUN
Accordingly, we conclude that the vacuum of the Earth is balanced by the vacuum of the Sun.
The resultant forces in the Solar System are constantly changing. At the moment, according to our interpretation, they are in favor of the planets of the Solar System. We maintain that the planets reduce the gravitational pull of the Sun and that the Sun gives off energy, that is, light.
Thus, we do not view the Solar System simply as a collection of independent bodies moving through an empty region. We understand it as a system of interacting material and immaterial components in which the forces of the Sun and planets are continuously balanced and redistributed.
We regard this balance as dynamic rather than absolutely motionless. The forces change, the planets move, the Sun emits energy, and the material bodies continue their rotations and revolutions. Nevertheless, we maintain that the general organization of the system remains intact.
GENERAL PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE
We can now establish a general picture of the Universe.
We maintain that the gravitational field of any star is balanced by the planetary mass of its 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, according to our conception, should work like clockwork.
At the smallest level, we see matter interacting with the vacuum surrounding it. At the planetary level, we see planets and their star forming a balanced system. At the galactic level, individual star systems become components of a greater gravitational organization. Finally, galaxies themselves participate in the still greater structure of the Universe.
In this way, we understand every level as connected with the next. We do not regard the Universe merely as a random collection of independent objects. Rather, we understand it as a hierarchy of interconnected systems.
THE PROBLEM OF BLACK HOLES AND COSMIC MATTER
But we recognize that the situation 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. They represent enormous concentrations or distributions of matter whose behavior appears difficult to reconcile with the simple picture of a perfectly balanced cosmic system.
Black holes, in particular, present us with a special problem because of their immense gravitational influence and the concentration of matter associated with them. Immense clouds of gas and dust likewise demonstrate that matter can be distributed in highly irregular forms throughout galaxies and between them.
Therefore, although we have arrived at a general picture in which matter and vacuum form interconnected systems and in which gravitational forces are balanced at different levels, we recognize that the existence of black holes and immense clouds of gas and dust presents phenomena requiring further explanation.
The apparent disorder of these phenomena does not necessarily destroy, in our view, the integrity of the whole. Rather, it may indicate that the balance between matter and vacuum is more complicated than it first appears. The parts can change, move, merge, disperse, or become concentrated, while the complete system may nevertheless preserve its fundamental organization.
Thus, our analysis leads us from the relationship between Earth and Moon, through the Solar System and galaxies, to the very nature of space and the Universe itself. Throughout this analysis, our central idea remains the same: matter and vacuum are two inseparable parts of one system, and gravitation is the process through which their relationship is expressed.
BLACK HOLE
THE CONVENTIONAL VIEW OF BLACK HOLES
Representatives of the school of Mr. Hawking, associated with M-Theory, followers of Mr. Brian Greene and String Theory, and some other astrophysicists maintain that a Black Hole possesses such an enormous gravitational force that even light cannot escape from it. We do not intend to invent anything new merely for the sake of novelty. Instead, we will open any standard textbook on physics and examine for ourselves what is meant by the term “speed of light.”
In our understanding, the speed of light should be considered primarily as the speed at which an electromagnetic signal propagates through an electric field. In other words, almost nothing material actually moves through space at the speed of light. The movement of electrons and the transmission of an electromagnetic signal are not identical phenomena. We therefore believe that it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the movement of matter and the propagation of a signal.
For example, we can open a water tap and observe that water immediately begins to flow. A signal transmitted through a hydraulic system indicating that the pressure has changed can propagate through the system very rapidly, while the water itself does not move through the pipes at the speed of light. The same principle, in our opinion, can be observed in an electrical system. The movement of electrons is one phenomenon, while the transmission of a change in the electric field is another.
If an electric field exists, and therefore an electrical interaction is present, there must also be a means by which a change in that field is transmitted. We therefore regard the speed of light primarily as the speed of transmission of an electromagnetic signal rather than as the speed at which material particles themselves travel.
THE QUESTION OF A SUPER-MASSIVE OBJECT
Another serious mistake, in our opinion, is made when Mr. Hawking, Mr. Brian Greene and other astrophysicists describe the center of a Black Hole as containing an extremely massive microscopic object that produces extraordinarily powerful gravity.
Let us look once again at the Solar System. Its very name tells us that it is a system. The Milky Way is also a system. We cannot examine one part of such a system in complete isolation from the rest and then claim that it is entirely self-sufficient. One system is connected with another. The Solar System is connected with the Milky Way, the Milky Way is connected with other galaxies, and all these structures interact through gravitational and electromagnetic relationships.
The atom itself is also a system. It contains different components that exist in a relationship with one another. Therefore, when we speak about a microscopic, invisible and extraordinarily massive object existing independently at the center of a Black Hole, we must ask what evidence demonstrates that such a self-sufficient object actually exists.
How can we prove the existence of an invisible microscopic object possessing an enormous mass while being completely independent of the surrounding system? In our opinion, neither logic nor physics provides sufficient evidence for such an interpretation.
We therefore regard many of the statements made about the internal structure of Black Holes as theoretical constructions rather than established observations. We advise those who enjoy theoretical and imaginative explanations of the Universe to read the works of Mr. Hawking and Mr. Brian Greene. Such books undoubtedly stimulate the imagination and can greatly expand our ability to think about possibilities beyond ordinary experience.
BLACK HOLES AT THE CENTERS OF GALAXIES
A detailed study of observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope, which operates in space, has shown us what appears to be an important regularity: many galaxies seem to have extremely massive central regions associated with Black Holes. These central objects appear to influence the circular motion of matter around them and to keep surrounding material in orbital motion.
This observation raises several fundamental questions for us.
What, in reality, is a Black Hole? What is the nature of its origin? Is it really only the consequence of the explosion and collapse of a giant star, or could it be the manifestation of another process operating throughout the Universe?
To understand the nature of Black Holes more clearly, we believe that we must once again examine the Solar System. The Solar System provides us with an example of a large organized system in which matter is distributed in a definite order.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF MATTER IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
At the center of the Solar System is the Sun. It consists of extremely dense matter and exists in a plasma state. The light spectrum observed from stars has allowed scientists to make assumptions about their chemical composition. In our interpretation, the observed spectrum can be connected with the release of atoms and elements into the stellar atmosphere, followed by processes of cooling, separation and crystallization of gaseous matter.
The first planet from the Sun is Mercury. In our view, Mercury represents a relatively dense concentration of matter within the Solar System. After Mercury comes Venus, which contains a different proportion of heavier elements. Then comes Earth, followed by Mars, the gas giants and other bodies composed of combinations of gas, ice, dust and heavier material.
It is easy for us to notice a general tendency: as the distance from the Sun increases, the average density and composition of matter change. The inner region is dominated by relatively dense planetary bodies, while farther from the Sun we encounter increasingly large bodies containing greater proportions of lighter substances, gases and ices.
This distribution, in our opinion, is not accidental. It gives us an opportunity to consider the Solar System as a unified system in which the distribution of matter is connected with the forces acting throughout the system.
THE MILKY WAY AS A LARGER SYSTEM
We believe that the same principle can be applied to the entire galaxy. If the Solar System is a system within the Milky Way, then the Milky Way itself can be regarded as a much larger system in which matter is distributed according to its position and interaction with surrounding forces.
The stars located closest to the central Black Hole of the Milky Way appear to include very dense and massive stars. In our comparison, they can be considered analogous in some respects to Mercury, the densest planet close to our Sun. Farther from the galactic center we find stars with different and generally lower average densities, including stars comparable to our Sun. On the outskirts of the galaxy there are enormous giant stars with still different distributions of matter.
Thus, in our interpretation, there is a broad relationship between distance from the center of a system and the character of the matter distributed within it.
THE UNIQUE POSITION OF EARTH
All of this gives us reason to consider the unique position of Earth not only within the Solar System but also within the Milky Way.
As far as we currently know, Earth is the only planet in our galaxy on which organic life has been established with certainty. We cannot state with certainty that life exists nowhere else in the Universe. We cannot even exclude the possibility of life elsewhere in the Milky Way. Nevertheless, on the basis of what is presently known to us, Earth remains unique.
We therefore believe that the particular position of Earth within the Solar System and the particular position of the Solar System within the Milky Way deserve much greater attention. The distribution of matter, the movement of celestial bodies and the balance of forces may all be connected.
GRAVITY, CIRCULAR MOTION AND VACUUM
In our theory, gravity produces the circular motion of planets and other celestial bodies. The planets themselves can be regarded as having formed from circular rings or concentrations of matter surrounding stars.
However, we believe that the gravitational forces of galaxies do not remain unchanged forever. With time, their strength may diminish, and their ability to maintain the surrounding mass in the same configuration may weaken. The equilibrium of gravitational forces is therefore not permanent but is constantly changing.
One of the basic natural principles that we consider important is the principle that nature abhors a vacuum. We regard vacuum as the opposite force to gravity. In our interpretation, vacuum continually strives to separate matter into finer particles and to occupy the space from which matter has moved.
Thus, gravity and vacuum represent two opposite tendencies. Gravity gathers and holds matter together, while vacuum acts to disperse and redistribute it.
THE BALANCE OF UNIVERSAL ENERGY
We consider the energy of the Universe to be constant. It is balanced, on one side, by the gravity of celestial bodies, which represents a collective force, and on the other side by the power of vacuum.
When the holding force of the Milky Way diminishes, we believe that the Sun’s atmosphere can expand into the surrounding solar vacuum. As a consequence, Earth’s atmosphere can also expand within its own surrounding vacuum. We believe that a similar process can occur throughout the Universe.
In this view, substance does not simply move through some mysterious, infinite and empty space, as we believe some astrophysical interpretations suggest. Instead, matter moves within a Universe containing interacting systems of matter, gravity and vacuum.
The movement of matter is therefore not an isolated event. It is part of a continuous universal process in which forces act upon one another and in which the distribution of matter changes with time.
BLACK HOLES AS ENGINES OF GALACTIC MOTION
We regard Black Holes as an integral part of the Universe. In our theory, they are not merely dead remnants of stars but fundamental engines participating in the rotation and organization of galaxies.
They distribute and redistribute matter throughout space. The moving power of the Universe moves matter, creating turbulence and producing large-scale structures. In our interpretation, galaxies are formed through the activity of Black Holes.
We therefore propose that a Black Hole is essentially a vacuum hole. It “sucks” matter inward and, according to our hypothesis, sends or redistributes that matter to another region of the Universe.
At first, such a Black Hole gathers increasing quantities of matter while releasing less and less of it. As matter accumulates around its center, the mass of the surrounding system increases. This accumulation contributes to a relative balance between forces of action and reaction.
Eventually, the Black Hole becomes passive in relation to the surrounding matter. It no longer throws significant quantities of matter outward into space but instead causes matter to rotate around it. From this rotating material, stars and planets can subsequently emerge.
At this stage, a galaxy has been formed.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECOMPOSITION OF GALAXIES
A galaxy, however, is not necessarily permanent in its original form. Over immense periods of time, we believe that it loses part of its strength relative to the surrounding vacuum. The balance of forces changes, and the reverse process begins.
Matter that was once gathered becomes increasingly dispersed. The structures that were formed through the concentration of matter gradually begin to break apart. Thus, in our conception, the Universe contains not only a process of formation but also a process of decomposition.
Formation and decomposition are therefore two stages of one continuous process.
The same forces that gather matter at one stage can eventually become insufficient to hold it together. The Universe is consequently not static. It is a constantly changing system in which matter is gathered, concentrated, redistributed and dispersed.
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM?
But this immediately raises another fundamental question: where does the energy required for all this motion come from?
Our answer is that the energy of the Universe is constant. The uneven distribution of matter creates differences in the forces acting upon different regions, and these differences produce motion.
The reason for motion, in our view, is the perpetual struggle between matter and vacuum.
Matter possesses inertia and therefore resists change. Vacuum, on the other hand, represents an active and creative power that continuously acts upon matter. The interaction between these two opposite principles creates the conditions for continuous movement.
WHY DO GALAXIES COLLIDE?
We can now ask another question: why do galaxies collide?
In our interpretation, a Black Hole does not simply hold matter around itself. It also participates in the redistribution of matter. When a Black Hole sends matter away from itself, that matter can become part of another system.
The addition of mass changes the balance of forces within the receiving galaxy. As its structure changes, its gravitational power and its relationship with neighboring galaxies also change.
A weaker galaxy can therefore become subject to the influence of a stronger neighboring galaxy. Over time, the two systems can approach one another and eventually collide or merge.
Thus, what appears to be an accidental collision may, in our theory, be part of the natural redistribution of matter throughout the Universe.
THE PLANCK COLD SPOT AND VACUUM ENERGY
The Planck space telescope, launched in 2009, identified a relatively large cold region, or cold spot, extending much farther than some standard models could readily explain.
We regard this observation as an indication that there may be forms of stored vacuum energy that are not sufficiently represented in conventional models.
In our interpretation, the existence of unusual large-scale structures in the cosmic background gives us additional reason to consider vacuum not as simple emptiness but as an active component of the Universe.
Vacuum, in our theory, is not merely the absence of matter. It possesses a creative capacity and participates in the movement and redistribution of matter.
SUPERNOVAE AND THE ORIGIN OF BLACK HOLES
A supernova explosion is another possible source of the emergence of a Black Hole, and this general connection between stellar explosions and Black Hole formation is recognized in modern astrophysics.
We nevertheless interpret the process differently from the conventional explanation. We do not regard the resulting Black Hole simply as an isolated massive object created by the collapse of a star. We believe that the phenomenon should be understood as part of the larger interaction between matter, gravity and vacuum.
Vacuum is ubiquitous throughout the Universe. It is not material in our conception. Instead, we regard it as an active or creative power.
Matter, by contrast, possesses a passive or inertial force. Because matter provides resistance to change, we argue that matter cannot create itself.
VACUUM AS AN ACTIVE FORCE
To illustrate our idea, we can imagine a pendulum whose moving parts experience no friction. If such a system were placed in ideal vacuum and all forms of resistance were removed, it could continue moving indefinitely.
This example helps us understand why we regard the Universe as being in constant motion. Vacuum, in our conception, always acts with a constant force. It does not age, decompose or become exhausted because it is non-material.
Matter is different. Its inertial characteristics are changeable because matter can be transformed, redistributed and broken down into other forms.
Therefore, these two opposite forces cannot establish a final and permanent balance. Their interaction produces continuous movement.
THE DECREASE OF ENERGY AND THE SUN
From our everyday experience, we know that usable energy decreases with time. At the same time, we observe the Sun radiating enormous quantities of energy.
We therefore question the assumption that an unexplained and causeless compression of the Sun can continue indefinitely and that this compression alone can account for the processes occurring within it.
We believe that the gravitational attraction acting upon the Sun must be considered in relation to the larger galactic system. The Sun does not exist independently of the Milky Way. Its mass, density and behavior are consequences, in our interpretation, of the forces acting upon the entire system.
Nature teaches us, in our view, that the quality and complexity of matter cannot simply increase by itself without a corresponding cause.
OUR INTERPRETATION OF SOLAR MATTER
We therefore flatly reject the idea of a causeless solar compression as an adequate explanation. We also question the conventional interpretation that the fusion of atoms inside the Sun is the sole origin of the hydrogen and helium observed there.
We argue instead that these gases are present in the Sun as a consequence of the decomposition of elements with greater atomic masses. According to our hypothesis, matter undergoes a natural process of decrease and decomposition rather than an unexplained increase in its fundamental gravitational force.
In this way, we connect the processes occurring within the Sun with the larger processes taking place throughout the Solar System and the Milky Way.
The Sun, the planets, the galaxy and the Black Hole must therefore be considered as parts of one interconnected system. Nothing in the Universe exists completely independently. Matter is continuously redistributed; gravity gathers it, vacuum disperses it, and the interaction of these opposite tendencies produces the perpetual motion and transformation that we observe throughout the Universe.
SOLUTION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL PROBLEM BY IMMANUEL KANT
SUBSTANCE AS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE UNIVERSE
According to Immanuel Kant, there is nothing in the Universe that can be accepted as a basic principle of its explanation except substance. Wherever we look, we observe a constant change of material forms. Objects are born, develop, transform, and disappear, while the substance from which they are formed does not simply vanish into nothing. The forms of matter may change, but the total quantity of matter and energy remains constant.
We can observe this principle everywhere in Nature. A form can disappear and another form can arise in its place, but what existed before does not simply become absolute nothingness. Everything changes in time, while time itself remains unchanged. In this sense, we can consider constant time as another notion for substance.
In all changes of the World, the amount of substance remains the same; only its form changes. Matter can pass from one state to another, energy can be transformed, and material structures can be reorganized, but the fundamental quantity remains. From this point of view, time and matter can be regarded as identical concepts, because both express the permanent foundation upon which changing forms are manifested.
When we look at the Universe as a whole, we therefore do not need to imagine an external principle standing outside it and controlling its existence. The Universe exists through the permanence of its substance and through the continuous transformation of its forms. What changes is the appearance and arrangement of things; what remains is the underlying reality.
THE PERMANENCE OF TIME
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 itself remains the same. We constantly move from one present moment to another in our experience, but each moment, while it exists, is always the present.
It is inappropriate to use the term “eternal” in precisely the same sense, since eternity usually implies some kind of duration extending indefinitely into the past or future. The concept of permanence is different. Permanence does not require us to imagine an infinitely long period. It indicates that what we call time is always present.
Consequently, it is better for us to say that the Universe is not eternal, but permanent. The Universe does not need to be imagined as an object that began at some particular moment and then continues through an infinite duration. It simply exists. Its existence is always encountered by us in the present.
This distinction is important because the human mind naturally imagines time as a line extending backward and forward. We imagine the past, present, and future as different regions of a single temporal dimension. Yet our direct experience is always limited to the present. The past is available to us through memory, while the future is available only through expectation, calculation, and imagination.
THE PRESENT MOMENT AND THE EXPERIENCE OF MOTION
We always find ourselves at the present time, which occupies only one moment. From this perspective, the present moment is a state of rest. We can observe motion only with the help of our memory, that is, by experience.
When we say that an object has moved, we compare its present position with a position that we remember from before. Without this comparison, the idea of movement would not arise in our consciousness in the same way.
If motion were absolute, then we should be able to occupy the past, present, and future simultaneously or to move from one of them into another. We should, in principle, be able to travel through time as we travel through space. In reality, however, we do not experience time in this manner.
We compare what was before with what is now and thus comprehend the change that we interpret as movement. Our understanding of motion therefore depends upon the connection between different experiences.
If we did not have memory, we would not be able to comprehend change. We would always see only the present image. We could observe the world, but we would not be able to establish that the present situation differs from a previous situation because the previous situation would not be available to us.
Once again, everything depends on which angle we consider the given phenomenon from. From the point of view of the present time, there is always a state of rest. From the point of view of experience and memory, there is motion.
Thus, the state of rest and motion occur simultaneously. They are not necessarily contradictory descriptions. They are two different ways of considering the same phenomenon.
The Universe simply exists. It exists always at the present time and always takes all its places. What we call movement is our experience of successive changes in the forms and positions of matter.
DEFINITION OF TIME
We can formulate our understanding of time through several propositions.
1. Time is always permanent.
Everything changes in time; however, time itself never changes. We experience changes within time, but we do not observe time itself becoming something different from what it is.
2. Time is like a platform on which matter changes its form.
Matter and energy undergo transformations, while the temporal framework in which these transformations are experienced remains constant.
3. Everything that exists is in a constant flow at the present time.
Therefore, time can be regarded as another word for matter insofar as both are connected with the permanent reality of existence. Matter changes its form, but existence remains.
4. The quantity of matter and energy is always the same; only its form changes.
This continuous transformation of forms in the Universe can be called universal time. Universal time is therefore not necessarily an independent substance flowing through the Universe, but the permanent process of transformation of its contents.
5. Humans and other living creatures experience time as something that is constantly flowing.
This form of time can be called psychological time. It belongs to our experience of successive events and to our consciousness of change.
6. We can compare, connect, and combine past events with the help of our memory.
In doing so, we may become victims of the illusion that time itself changes. What actually changes are the states of the objects and the information available to our consciousness.
7. If it were not for our memory, we would always see the same picture.
We would not remember that something had changed. Every present image would exist only as the immediate present, without the comparison necessary to establish a sequence of events.
8. Psychological time is applied in physics, since an experiment is possible only as a process.
We perform an experiment by comparing what was then with what is now. We record a previous condition, observe a subsequent condition, and establish a relationship between them. Thus, scientific measurement itself involves memory, records, and comparison.
9. When we take into account the fact that there are two forms of time—psychological and universal—many misunderstandings regarding time disappear.
Universal time refers to the permanent existence and transformation of the Universe, whereas psychological time refers to the way conscious beings experience and organize those changes.
10. Only by way of a constant psychological process in our brain, adding one piece of information to another, can we experience this World.
Our intuition therefore creates time as a flow of information. The time that appears to change and flow continuously is, from this point of view, solely a product of our minds and of the way consciousness connects separate experiences into a sequence.
MOTION AND REST AS RELATIVE CONCEPTS
If we open any textbook on physics, we will read that motion is relative to something. An object cannot simply be declared to be moving or resting without specifying the reference from which its condition is being considered.
We can illustrate this with the familiar example of the Moon. Two astronomers, 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 asserted that the Moon does not rotate around its axis for the same reason.
From one point of view, one statement appeared correct; from another point of view, the other statement could be defended. The apparent contradiction arose because the two observers were using different perspectives and reference systems.
From the perspective of an observer on Earth, the Moon appears not to rotate around its axis in relation to the same face being presented to Earth. Relative to distant celestial bodies, however, the Moon does rotate. Thus, the same phenomenon can be described differently depending on the reference system.
The important point for us is that motion and rest can occur at the same time. An object can be considered at rest relative to one reference system and in motion relative to another.
This gives us another illustration of the distinction between absolute claims and relative experience. We should therefore be cautious when we speak about motion as though it existed independently of every possible observer and reference point.
KANT AND THE LIMITS OF THE UNIVERSE
Kant argued that we cannot determine the limit or infinity of the Universe even in our minds. If we try to imagine one of its limits, we immediately encounter a difficulty.
Suppose we imagine that the Universe has a final boundary. We then have to ask what lies beyond that boundary. The moment we ask this question, we mentally place something beyond the limit we have established. Therefore, the boundary does not provide a final stopping point for our thought.
The process of synthesis continues. We establish a limit, then imagine what is beyond it, and thereby immediately move beyond the limit itself. The supposed boundary therefore fails to give our thought a definitive conclusion.
On the other hand, if we declare that the Universe is infinite, we encounter another difficulty. The concept of infinity is too great for our complete understanding. We cannot experience an infinite totality as a completed object.
Thus, the proposition “the Universe is infinite” can be too great for our understanding, while the judgment “the Universe is limited” can be too small for our understanding.
If we assume that the Universe has boundaries, we have to explain what goes farther. If we assume that it has no boundaries, we have to comprehend an infinite totality. In both cases, our mind encounters a conceptual difficulty.
Any judgment regarding the limits of the Universe can therefore appear either too large or too small for our understanding.
SPACE AS A FORM OF PERCEPTION
Space, in this conception, is merely a form of our external perception, and it is not a real object existing independently in the same way as material objects. Space is the framework through which our mind organizes external phenomena.
We ordinarily imagine space as something that contains objects. However, from the Kantian perspective, we can reverse this way of thinking. Space is limited by objects rather than objects being limited by an independently existing spatial container.
When we say that something has a particular position, size, distance, or boundary, we are describing relationships between phenomena. We do not necessarily demonstrate that space itself is a material thing with independently existing properties.
Concepts such as “limited” and “unlimited” are therefore products of our mind. They are ways through which we attempt to organize and comprehend what is presented to experience.
To our mind, the Universe appears as the World, that is, as a numerical whole which we interpret with the help of mathematics. Mathematics allows us to establish relationships, quantities, dimensions, proportions, and patterns. Yet the mathematical description should not automatically be confused with the thing itself.
THE UNIVERSE AS A DYNAMIC WHOLE
The Universe, in the meaning of Nature, is a dynamic entity. It is continually changing in its forms, relationships, and distributions. Therefore, it is neither infinite nor limited in respect of space and time in any sense that we can completely establish through experience.
The Universe is simply there.
We do not need to force it into one of two mental categories—either infinitely extended or finitely bounded—when neither category can be completely demonstrated from experience.
The Universe as a whole can be conceived only as an idea; it cannot be scientifically proven as a complete totality. Science deals with phenomena that can be observed, measured, compared, and connected through logical relationships. The Universe taken as an absolute whole exceeds any single possible observation.
The Universe takes all places at once, and those limits which some people tend to attribute to it are, from this perspective, products of our intuition and conceptual imagination.
We can speak about particular regions of space because we can observe objects and establish relationships between them. But when we attempt to impose an absolute boundary upon the whole of existence, we move beyond the limits of direct experience.
THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF SPACE
Now it can be clearly seen that for us space is three-dimensional. In experience, we attach three dimensions to phenomena of Nature. We describe objects according to length, width, and height, and we establish their positions through these dimensions.
However, these dimensions can also be understood as abilities of our mind to interpret the external situation.
We do not first encounter an abstract mathematical space and then discover objects inside it. We encounter phenomena and organize them according to the spatial forms available to our perception and understanding.
Consequently, three-dimensional space is the structure through which we experience external reality. This does not mean that the phenomena themselves cease to exist. Rather, it means that the form in which we comprehend them depends upon the structure of our cognition.
LOGICAL COMPLETENESS IN THE EXPLANATION OF NATURE
Every correct proposition of any theory must be a consequence of the previous judgment and the cause of the subsequent one. This chain must continue until a logical completeness is built.
A scientific explanation cannot simply begin with an arbitrary assumption and end with an equally arbitrary conclusion. Each proposition must have a relationship with what comes before it and what follows from it.
Such a solution is possible only when the beginning is simultaneously the end. In other words, the explanation must ultimately return to a principle that is capable of explaining itself without requiring another external principle of the same kind.
The explanation of the nature of the Universe is therefore possible only by using empirical and logical principles. If we ignore these principles, we risk entering a world of ideas and fantasies in which propositions can no longer be tested against experience.
For this reason, we consider it necessary to distinguish between what can be established through observation and what can merely be imagined.
GRAVITATIONAL THEORY AS AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH
The explanation of the Universe can be built on the gravitational theory of the distribution of cosmic energy because such an approach does not necessarily go beyond experience.
We observe gravitational relationships throughout Nature. Celestial bodies interact, matter is distributed, systems form structures, and objects follow recognizable patterns of motion. These phenomena provide an empirical foundation from which we can construct theoretical explanations.
Instead of beginning with an imagined beginning of the Universe, an imagined external boundary, or an abstract infinite extension, we can begin with what is actually presented to us: matter, energy, motion, gravitational relationships, and their observable transformations.
From this point of view, the gravitational distribution of cosmic energy becomes an important principle for understanding the organization of the Universe.
THE REJECTION OF PURELY IMAGINARY COSMOLOGICAL BEGINNINGS
Any theory that is based on a generation of space and time in the distant past, on a limited or unlimited space, or on similar concepts can, from our perspective, become merely a product of imagination if these assumptions cannot be connected directly with possible experience.
We must distinguish between a mathematical model and the physical reality that the model is supposed to describe. Mathematics can construct highly sophisticated possibilities, but mathematical possibility alone does not establish physical reality.
The limits of the Universe will forever remain inaccessible to any possible direct experience if by “limits” we mean an absolute boundary of the entire Universe. Likewise, the complete totality of the Universe cannot be placed before us as an ordinary object of observation.
Our knowledge therefore has a natural boundary. We can investigate particular phenomena, establish relationships between them, formulate laws, and develop increasingly comprehensive theories. But we cannot simply assume that the totality of existence must conform to the categories that our minds use to organize experience.
THE UNIVERSE SIMPLY EXISTS
When we bring all these considerations together, we arrive at the central idea that the Universe simply exists.
It exists in the present. Its substance remains permanent while its forms change. Matter and energy undergo transformations, while the totality of what exists does not need to be imagined as repeatedly appearing from absolute nothingness.
We experience motion because we compare different states through memory. We experience time as a flow because our consciousness connects one piece of information with another. We experience space through the forms of external perception that allow us to organize phenomena according to dimensions and relationships.
From this perspective, time, motion, space, and the limits of the Universe must all be considered carefully. What appears obvious to common intuition may become much more complicated when we ask what exactly can be established by experience.
The Universe therefore cannot be reduced to a simple picture of an object existing inside an external space and moving through an independently flowing time. Such a picture may be useful for ordinary experience, but it does not necessarily provide the final philosophical explanation of existence.
FROM EXPERIENCE TO COSMOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
We can therefore conclude that the cosmological problem requires us to distinguish carefully between reality and the forms through which our minds comprehend reality.
Substance is permanent while its forms change. Time is permanent in the sense that every experience takes place in the present. Psychological time arises through memory and through the continuous combination of information. Motion is understood through comparison between different states. Rest and motion can therefore be simultaneous when considered from different perspectives.
Space is a form through which we organize external perception. The concepts of limitation and infinity are products of our intellectual attempt to comprehend the Universe as a whole. The Universe itself, considered as Nature, is a dynamic entity that simply exists.
We cannot establish through experience an absolute boundary of the Universe, nor can we experience its total infinity as a completed object. Any attempt to do so leads our thinking beyond what can be directly verified.
For this reason, we should build our explanation from empirical facts and logical relationships rather than from assumptions that cannot be tested. The gravitational theory of the distribution of cosmic energy provides, in our view, a possible foundation because it remains connected with observable phenomena.
The most important point is that we should not confuse the structures created by our perception and reasoning with the ultimate nature of reality itself. Our mind gives order to experience, connects events through memory, interprets spatial relationships, and constructs mathematical descriptions.
The Universe, however, does not depend upon our ability to describe it. It simply exists.
We always encounter it in the present, while our memory creates the connection between different states and gives us the experience of change. Thus, what we call the flow of time may be understood as the continuous process through which our consciousness combines information, while the underlying Universe remains permanent in its existence.
In this way, the cosmological problem leads us back to the distinction between what changes and what remains. Forms change, relationships change, positions change, and our experience changes. Yet the existence of the Universe itself does not require us to imagine an absolute beginning, an absolute end, or an external place beyond it.
The Universe is not something that we must necessarily place within another space or another time. It is the totality of Nature itself. It simply exists, and our task is to understand it through the limits of experience, logical reasoning, and careful observation rather than through concepts that exceed the possibility of verification.
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.
CONCLUSION
We, in the course of our analysis, have tried to look at Nature not as a collection of separate phenomena, but as a single, interconnected system governed by common principles. The diversity of the world is enormous, yet behind this diversity we can recognize the same fundamental relationships: matter interacts with matter, forces cause motion, energy produces changes, and every physical phenomenon is connected with other phenomena by definite laws. The deeper we penetrate into Nature, the more clearly we see that no object exists entirely by itself.
Our starting point was the simplest possible observation: everything that surrounds us is in motion and interaction. Matter does not simply exist in isolation; it constantly participates in processes. The atom, the planet, the star and the entire Universe represent different levels of the same natural reality. Therefore, if we want to understand the largest structures of the Universe, we cannot completely separate them from the elementary principles that operate at the smallest scales.
In this work, we have also tried to draw attention to a distinction between what is directly observable and what is introduced by human thought as an explanation of what is observed. Science is built upon observation, experiment, mathematics and logical interpretation. But when an explanation goes beyond the limits of possible observation and becomes an assumption about an invisible reality, we must distinguish the natural phenomenon itself from the theory constructed to describe it.
This distinction is especially important when we speak about the Universe as a whole. We cannot place the Universe outside ourselves and observe it as an ordinary laboratory object. We therefore have to be particularly careful when transforming mathematical constructions into statements about physical reality. A mathematical description can be extraordinarily powerful, but mathematics itself does not automatically constitute the physical cause of the phenomenon being described.
The central question of this work is therefore not simply what energy is capable of doing, but what lies behind its manifestations. We have called this aspect the immaterial side of energy. By this expression, we do not mean that Nature is necessarily composed of something supernatural or mystical. Rather, we mean that the visible manifestation of a physical process may not exhaust the question of its underlying cause. What we observe is an effect, while the mechanism producing that effect may require a deeper level of explanation.
Gravity provides one of the most important examples. We observe that bodies possessing mass attract one another and that celestial bodies move according to definite gravitational relationships. The mathematical description of this motion is extraordinarily successful. Yet a philosophical question remains: what is the physical reality underlying gravitational interaction? Describing how bodies behave is not necessarily identical to explaining why they behave in this way.
The same question can be extended to energy itself. We normally encounter energy through its manifestations: movement, heat, radiation, electricity, chemical reactions and other transformations. Energy changes form, but the existence of these transformations leads us to ask whether the concept of energy describes only a measurable property of physical processes or whether there is a deeper principle responsible for the possibility of these processes in the first place.
Our analysis has consequently led us toward the idea that Nature should be considered as an internally connected whole. Matter, motion, force, energy, space and time cannot be treated as completely independent concepts. Each acquires its meaning through its relationship with the others. The Universe is not simply a collection of objects placed next to one another; it is a system of relationships in which every component participates.
This perspective also changes the way we should approach scientific theories. A theory should not become an object of belief merely because it is mathematically sophisticated or widely accepted. At the same time, rejecting an established theory merely because it is difficult or counterintuitive would be equally unjustified. The correct approach is more demanding: we must examine what a theory explains, what observations support it, what assumptions it requires, and where its explanatory limits begin.
We therefore do not consider the task of this work to be the replacement of one unquestionable doctrine by another. Our purpose is to reopen questions that may have become hidden behind established terminology. Every generation inherits a certain picture of the Universe. But scientific and philosophical progress begins when someone is prepared to ask whether that picture represents the final truth or merely the best explanation available at a particular stage of human knowledge.
The history of science demonstrates that ideas once considered obvious can later be reconsidered. At the same time, new ideas must themselves withstand criticism. For this reason, the concepts presented in this work should be understood as an invitation to further investigation rather than as a demand for unquestioning acceptance.
The most important conclusion we can draw is therefore methodological as much as physical: we should never confuse our description of Nature with Nature itself. A formula, a model or a theory is a human construction intended to reveal regularities in reality. Reality itself remains larger than any particular description of it.
Perhaps this is where the material and immaterial sides of energy meet. The material side is accessible to measurement: we can observe motion, calculate changes, measure forces and determine quantities. The immaterial side concerns the deeper relationships and principles that make these manifestations possible. It is the boundary between what we know directly and what we are still trying to understand.
We have reached the conclusion that the search for the foundations of Nature cannot be completed by collecting an ever greater number of isolated facts. We must also search for the unity connecting those facts. The ultimate task of natural philosophy is precisely this: to move from the diversity of phenomena toward the principles that unite them.
The Universe remains before us as an immense field for investigation. Every answer creates new questions, and every theory opens the possibility of a deeper theory. Therefore, the final conclusion of our work is not that the search has ended, but that the search must continue.
If the ideas presented here have any lasting value, it is perhaps in reminding us that behind every visible phenomenon there may remain a deeper question; behind every established explanation, a more fundamental cause; and behind the apparent simplicity of Nature, an extraordinary depth that human thought has only begun to explore.
We do not claim to have closed the question of energy. We believe that we have opened it more widely.
And perhaps the true immaterial side of energy is precisely this: the unknown principle that remains behind everything we have already learned to measure.
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.
46
The Immaterial Side of Energy
© Copyright: Белоусов Андрей Викторович, 2026
Свидетельство о публикации №226032101700
Свидетельство о публикации №226032101700
Рецензии