Posts Tagged ‘deep-field’

The Neolithic Ice Age

Sunday, April 24th, 2016

(This is a substantial revision of an earlier page, april 2016)

Introduction

Our days are about ‘the global issue’, about ‘climate change’. All temporary human conflicts dwarf in comparison to the disasters we are about to bring upon ourselves and all generations to come. We are about to lose a paradise, because of our greed and folly, our short-term thinking and ignorance, we are creating a ‘paradise-lost’, forever, a living hell for posterity. We may look at human life as a murderous deal or as a great spiritual opportunity, whatever it is, we all agree on the beauty of Nature (without us). Life is a miracle, that is its entrenching beauty; we can’t get enough of it although or because we don’t understand it and we live most of the time as if we will never cease to exist; we haven’t got a clue.

To what extent we actually bother about the future of humankind is hard to say. At least we have no qualms about using all the natural resources within our grasp. We use the rarest materials and turn them into waste, we are prepared to risk immeasurable ecological disasters to squeeze the last drops of oil from the earth’s crust; our time will be loathed and cursed by future humankind, because we have wasted resources we did not even know the real value of (platinum in exhaust pipes, tungsten in batteries), all very rare metals and resources gone in the foreseeable future and no way to stop it, not to mention the ‘invisible’ biological resources and diversity dwindling at an alarming pace.
This whole (economical) attitude of short term goals and reckless exploitation brings us the waste and pollution that will eventually suffocate us probably, a process that is already visible in the smogs in Chinese and Indian cities, but will exacerbate as the oxygen production falters when the green lungs of the earth will turn into brown slime and the end of higher life must be nearing. Most of this disaster was foreseen, but we do not have the political structures that provide a quality of leadership that can absorb information and see ahead in wisdom.

To what extent the global pollution is the major agent of the present climate change may be under debate, which only means there may be other considerable natural factors that have an influence as well. For me it is a glimmer of hope that the present climate change may be exacerbated by accidental natural coincidences like planet alignments that cause gravitational friction within the liquid bodies of planets (tectonics, volcanism) and even in the body of the sun itself. I need this hope because otherwise I do not see how long-term effects of the present volume of ongoing destruction can be avoided, since the point of no return in terms of accelerating decline may well have been reached already in that case.

Although we jolly well knew that there had been changes in climate most notably ‘remembered’ as ‘Ice Ages’, still in our everyday life’s experience the climate was quite stable although the weather was a bit unpredictable in the short term but as it was, not much climate change was going on, it seemed and it was no issue. This is remarkable because the Little Ice Age, a recent 500 year long cold spell in Europe lasted well into the 19th century (1850) and was known to geo-scientists and art-historians (winter landscapes). Things are changing now that the first extremities have manifested, we are a bit more aware of the global climate, but not yet of its status embedded in the solar system, it seems to me.
Although there is still a strong and very powerful contingent of ‘climate change-deniers’ under scientists, politicians and business professionals, the wider public and media get more and more concerned; especially so when indeed now extreme circumstances are occurring in many different places and being highlighted by the media.
During my research concerning the recent Little Ice Age (1350-1850),  I came across this graph where a similar glaciation and high wind circulation occurred during a period in the Neolithic. What especially intrigued me were the relative abrupt start and finish, this abruptness was accentuated by great temperature differences, from high to low in a short while, say, less than 50 years and at the end of ‘the age’ a similar sudden change again.
I am still hoping against hope that part of this climate change has to do with an incident of geometrical (gravitational) friction in the solar system orbits which would cause a heating of the Earth’s core which would then result in an imperceptible rise in (infra-red) radiation through the crust, causing a warming of the atmosphere. Especially recent alignments of the planets may have caused stress to the Earth’s inner core (think unexpected Mt. St Helens eruption), because, if a major alignment of the Moon can trigger as much as a 2% rise in the global high-tides (eclipse), then -given that all is vibration- such major alignments of planets and corresponding gravitational friction will have affected the ‘tides’ of the molten core of our planet as well and may have produced a heat generation in excess of the normal.

Major alignments seem to be quite common, but is this a period we are in just now or is it over the complete cycle of all orbits in the solar system in general? And have all alignments the same character?  Maybe we have to deal with different time-cycles then, but still they may have their underlying influences. Cycles of 26,000 and 100,000 years are scientifically identified and just now it is confirmed that volcanic activity has a major influence on climate change and correlates with greenhouse-icehouse changes over the longer term (720 million years)
I think it is important to view big issues over long periods of time in their proper perspective, we cannot deal with climate change properly when we have a rigid, short term view on the climate. There is no such thing as ‘a stable climate’, we very well know that, but what the leading causes for the big changes that occur are, we do not know so well, although now some strong indications are present.
Our everyday weather is a result of the inherent instability of the greater climate. There seems to be a theory which links the big climate changes of the past to the Sun’s activity. The so called sun spots, which have a recurrence cycle of about 11 years, would, in a bigger picture, be the causes of the ice ages.
I believe though that the general climate changes so far are expressions not of the activity of the Sun itself but of the frictions in the solar system’s gravity and inertial fields as a whole played out in the sun. Scientists still refuse to appreciate the one-ness of the totally integrated system.

The so-called Bary-center of the solar system is its real centre of gravity, but this centre moves in and out of the body of the Sun, or maybe better to say: the Sun wobbles around this centre in a perpetual stress, sometimes more, sometimes less.
This measure of stress is depending on the planets and especially on Jupiter with its dominating mass of which the orbit coincides with the Sun spots every 11- something years. So this is my theory of hope, that the sudden warming of the atmosphere is partly due to temporary stresses in the solar system’s inertial deep-fields (rotating planets = gyroscopes).
[[It should be noted here that Jupiter is only 1/1000 the mass of the Sun, revolves in an orbit far, far away, but is still capable of causing sunspots that would cause changes in the Earth atmosphere in the shape of ‘cold spells’, which we have named ‘Ice ages’. Jupiters influence is so strong probably because it rotates so fast (imagine one rotation in 10 hours only, for such a huge body, as does Saturn btw, something that generates huge inertia-> dark matter), spins which must have extra leverage in the equilibrium of the Sun that is very dependent on at least Jupiter’s orbital rotation. This is like the stability of the Earth roation depending predominantly on the orbit of the Moon. Although the stabilizing forces are enormous, they cannot be measured, let alone felt, only calculated. This is what they erroneously call ‘dark matter’, I think.
It are these same hidden stresses that ‘kneed’ the innards of the planets and the Sun. The inertial potential of a spinning object (gyroscope) is not fully understood by science it seems to me, it is most probably related to the so-called ‘dark matter’ enigma, as I explain elsewhere. It is all a complete misunderstanding of gravity still on the side of science.]]

The Neolithic Ice Age (NIA; 3800-2900 BCE)

To understand the building activities of Stone Age Atlantic European people we do well to place them against a background of climate change as stated above and to learn from them to see our own future and future generations in that perspective and to build huge communal refuges also in times when there is no immediate need for them yet. (for instance as quarantaine for lethal epidemics).
The megalithic chamber is seen as initially a communal refuge place, or bad weather hide-out (fishermen on small islands, Brittany! dozens of chambers, Molene archipelago; for the dead?, or for the fish?), later evolving into multipurpose spaces (cosmological, clinical, healing), spaces where very seldom burials took place and where the bones were initially of those who perished in the refuge. So death is definitely related to the chambers from the onset, but survival as well; this is the cornerstone of my theory.
Burial in a megalithic chamber has as little to do with its original function as burial in a church has with the function of the church. Apart from that it is maintained here that the bones of people in the chambers are usually of those who died there and did not survive the cold spell they took refuge from. It is a totally different perspective from the archaeological paradigm of a Neolithic death-cult and it is probably with its wealth of better arguments a lot closer to the truth.

The year 3800BC is on the record as the period that severe storms started to batter the Atlantic coast of Scotland. This date coincides with the start of a glaciation that is similar in character to the one that accompanied the recent cold spell in Europe from the 14th to 19th century, known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). The here proposed cold spell towards the end of the Neolithic I have coined the ‘Neolithic Ice Age’ (NIA), lasting from about 3800-2900BC. Like in the Little Ice Age this must have meant a severe worsening of weather conditions.
For what I gathered (over the years by now) I’ve become convinced that it were extreme weather conditions along the Atlantic littoral, from Portugal to Sweden, that made people decide to build huge refuge places insulated by massive amounts of stone, the origination of the megalithic chamber, the shelter of rock ‘above-ground’, like a cave in the rock ‘under-ground’.
With their sometimes long narrow entrance tunnels they resemble animal dens and with their corbelled domes they resemble igloos. There is at present no archaeologist who agrees with me, but that is mainly because it would be too embarrassing to have to admit a totally wrong interpretation on their behalf of these chambers as iconic buildings of the New Stone Age; archaeologists have never questioned the megalithic chambers had a primarily funeral function, whereas that ‘use’ was in fact an outflow of the tragic circumstances that would develop when people could not survive a cold spell one winter and died collectively in a chamber, as I maintain. It could very well also have been custom to leave the dead where they were when their remains were found by others during a next forced use of the chamber, this could be a generation later and by people who were no relatives at all, but often places seem cleaned out. The treatment of bones in chambers is very diverse, from ordered to absolutely chaotic, and seldom interred.

Like in the Mesolithic era people were probably used to keeping bones of the dead near them in their dwelling places or even take the dead into the house, as is still done in Guadeloupe today (for instance), and also very evidently happened at Skarabrae in Orkney at the time, where two cist graves were found under house-walls. Death and burial was probably much more a domestic issue than is suggested by the ‘cult of the dead’-paradigm that holds sway over archaeology today.

When we come to understand that the chambers were refuges then things seemingly ‘inexplicable’ become a ‘matter of course’. This is so convincingly the case with the long narrow tunnel-like entrances of many ‘passage’-chambers which provide a means to keep the cold out of the perfectly insulated chambers and cells (why insulate for the dead?). The mass of stone preserves the body heat generated by the people packed together in small cells for 6-12 people connected to a high hall. (HolmPapay, 14 cells, in 20m hall, over 3m high, narrow low entrance passage some 10m long)
The long uncomfortable entrance tunnel has no conceivable use in any funeral setting, this seems to me rather clear, but archaeologists won’t give in, I know, although they won’t come with a better explanation.
This whole idea of cold weather that I have argued, does not fit the received wisdom under archaeologists that it was warmer than today in that period and it’s just not true as we will see.

Below a graph of the ice core accentuated in colours by me

memory stick sony 1 181A

Greenland Ice Core Graph, Neolithic Ice Age (central dark blue block)

What particularly interests us here is the blue period of high circulation in the middle of the graph which is evidently related to a massive increase in glaciation shown in the grey and blue blocks below the peak period, this occurred roughly between 4000 – 3000 BCE, the fourth millennium. This then is the Neolithic Ice Age. This name is chosen because this period is similar (in glaciation!) to the recent Little Ice Age (1350-1850) in dark red on the graph (extreme left). And that is really not long ago.

memory stick sony 1 258A

 

‘Little’- and ‘Neolithic’- Ice Ages

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Neolithic warm?

The picture usually drawn of the late Stone Age is one of rather benign weather several degrees warmer than today even (mind you). This remarkable consensus seems to be based on some occasional finds of the bones of fish found in Orkney (Quanterness) that cannot survive in present day water temperatures ……. , they say. The sub-tropical species, corkwing wrasse,


974x400-corkwing-wrasse-and-nest-lr2-Credit-Julie_Hatcher[1]

though, is known to stray into the North Sea today and is remarkable for its tropical colours, so a precious and possibly easy catch! This means its (rare) occurrence on the Orkney record is no argument at all for, overall, warmer weather.

The graph also shows that the climate is a changeable phenomenon and that the idea of a stable climate is a fiction, but this does not mean that human action has no influence for good or for bad. The point is we have to learn to live with sudden climate change as a real possibility. (One thing I’ve learned from my study of the megalithic stone age is that going  underground is a perfect option, for heat and cold). The graphs show that both starts of the recent Little Ice Age and of the Neolithic Ice Age were preceded by a sudden rise in temperature and then an extreme fall in a very short term.

This deterioration is comparable with, if not worse than, the Little Ice Age that ravaged Europe recently between 1350 and 1850 AD, (see the red block) of which especially the sudden extreme change at the beginning in the Middle Ages had a devastating effect on the resistance of the European people and hunger and epidemic plagues, Black Death, were rampant, decimating the population.
The graph shows clearly a new world wide advance of glaciation 6000-5000 years ago which cannot be explained other than in a drop of temperature, at least in those areas, as Orkney, closest to the major glaciations.
In the Little Ice Age, two centuries ago, the Greenland Inuit travelled to Orkney on icebergs, that is how cold it was.
The overall temperature seems not to drop as low as around 6200 BC, a notoriously cold snap in archaeology, but local conditions can differ considerably from the overall picture.
Around 2900 BC the weather was already above average again, which in fact meant the end of the use of the chambers as refuges and also the definite end of the megalithic Funnelbeaker culture in northern continental Europe, which are most probably causally connected.
It got eventually so hot in the Middle East that the Akkadian Empire collapsed, due to the drought around 2200 BC. You don’t see that in the graph. Local conditions and periods can be extreme for good and for bad.

It seems already around 4800 BC the weather deteriorated according to other graphs, then improved again, but around 3800 BC it is an established fact that the Atlantic Scottish coast got battered by severe storms; so how about Orkney?
This would not have been different for Orkney of course, close as it is to the Scottish coast ( some 20 Miles away in the south), but the Scottish Highlands had woods and sheltered valleys, whereas Orkney had only smooth hills, no caves, broad loughs and pioneer tree vegetation.

By 3000 BC though, the end of the Neolithic Ice Age, Orkney had only some scrub left, all birch, hazel and willow that had dominated the landscape of the southern isles, before the high winds came, had gone, used for housing and for fuel most probably, or just perished in the salt winds, as still today hardly any trees grow in Orkney because of the high winds. Thus, Orkney was certainly no paradise for a substantial period in the Neolithic, although it probably would have been warmer than Scottish northern Caithness where some similar chambers were built.
A telling quote from the Orcadian, Orkney’s weekly newspaper of sept’14, in a story about Orcadian women, gives a grim picture of the circumstances in Orkney during the Little Ice Age, in this case of around 1800 CE:

They used to guarantee snow, then… recalled a senior citizen: ‘From what old folk often said in my boyhood, it would appear that the winters of 120 or 130 years ago were infinitely more severe than they are now’ (1930).
For several weeks on end drifts as high as the roofs remained. There were occasions too on which occupants were snowbound, reliant on better placed neighbours to dig them out.
Nearer modern times (1870) ‘six weeks of continuous deep snow’ was the expectation and generally, experience of folk ‘some time before the New Year and always three or four weeks in March’ with obvious problems for those with animals to feed.
[Compare this with today, where hardly any snow falls on Orkney, except sometimes on the higher hills. Orkney bathes in the warm waters of the Atlantic Gulfstream, neither does the temperature ever fall much below zero in winter.]

A similar severe climatic period in the Neolithic brought about the challenge to improve living conditions to survive, which paid off in numerous innovations.
The Neolithic Ice Age conditions would have caused the widespread building of survival chambers where the coastal peoples of Europe could weather the gales from the Atlantic and North Sea when these ravaged their homes and the conditions became life-threatening especially for children, the elderly and pregnant women. The average life-span was about thirty; at that age the ratio of men to women was 3:1, at the age of twenty, it was already 2:1. The survival of the whole population may have been at stake for considerable periods, the demographic situation was alarming.

It is these demographic and climatic conditions that initiated the communal effort to building the sometimes huge chambers, not some kind of, by archaeologists invented, all pervading ‘cult of the dead’. The chambers were a symbol of survival, of intense communal experience and hardship, also of loss, and naturally of growing reverence for the ancestry who built them, and sometimes perished in them; they revered the chambers the older they got, no doubt.
Imbued with the auspicious spirit of the ancestry some people brought bones of their dead to the chambers, which they may usually have kept at home. It was very rare for a person to be interred in the floor of a chamber, may be even done ‘clandestinely’, but the chambers were in no way built for that purpose; churchyards and churches are the most obvious expression of the wish to be buried near or in an auspicious and ancestral place, where relatives and other dead people are gathered, as a preferred gateway to the other world.

Maeshowe, one of the most sophisticated megalithic chambers ever built, was probably not primarily built as a place of communal shelter and storage of food as earlier chambers, although it kept the possibility of serving as such, no, Maeshowe was built for scientific, clinical and healing purposes and for the ‘storage and immortalization’ of knowledge. Maeshowe may have been earlier than or contemporary with the Egyptian pyramids, it is anyhow a conceptual blueprint in terms of embodying the state of the cosmological/scientific knowledge of the culture of its day, solidified in stone, to be preserved for posterity. Most curious of all is that its mathematics and dimensions show striking similarities with Giza in Egypt. A full blown enigma. (see pages: On Maeshowe, the Measure of Maeshowe and Maeshowe as Science-friction).

 

Gravity = the Cooling of the Cosmos

Friday, November 11th, 2011
 Gravity = the Cooling of the Cosmos

Introduction ‘Gravity’

In previous pieces I have advocated the idea that ‘gravity’ is the result of cosmic field pressure, emerging because of a ‘lee’ in the counter-pressure of the cosmic deep-field around a body. Although I was sitting in the bath, like Archimedes, when the idea came to me; unlike Archimedes, I stayed in the bath, not yet sure of my second ‘Eureka’ on gravity. I found just recently that Newton and Lorentz and several others had played with similar ideas a (long) time ago (see Wiki, history gravitation, paraphrased here), but although they all eventually dismissed it, I want to give it another try, from a different perspective. After all, gravity is still a mystery and here is a real (not abstract) and even understandable explanation.

Similar theories
Here are some points of similarity with those earlier theories:
1)Lorentz used electromagnetic radiation, like I do with Poynting vectors of EM-fields. 2) Newton and Riemann argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other, similar to my principle of ‘source streams to sink’. 3) Newton and Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies, which amounts to the same as my insight of ‘depressions’, or ‘lee-fields’ near the bodies. The ‘depression’, loss of pressure density, is what Einstein calls ‘curvature’, but that is too much a 2-D description of a 3-D reality and is only mathematical (Riemann); in my picture it is a loss of cosmic field-pressure (loss of density) in the spherical ‘lee’ of the object (shielding) which is mathematical but has ‘mechanical’ components, as deepfield-density and cosmic field-pressure.

It is indeed the deep-field which reacts to the presence of the object, in this it is in full agreement with Einstein, but the object is on the deepest level part of the deep-field through which it passes, it moulds the deep-field in its passing. Gravity and electromagnetism are not separate distinct fields, as Einstein maintains, they are both emerging aspects of the one deep-field, but since electromagnetism is the deep-field of all ‘matter’ the whole concept of gravity becomes obsolete. The  EM-field is  probably the main push of the pressure-gravity.

When you light a candle, you light the deep-field, the candle is not the source of the light, but the trigger of the deep-field. This is why the speed of light is independent of the motion of the so-called source, which is no source. The field is already there only has to be triggered to emerge. When you push the candle it will fall, the pressure-gravity field was already there, gravity ’emerges’ because of imbalance. When the candle falls, does its light fall? Can light fall? Newton thought the Earth was attracting the falling candle, Einstein claimed that as far as the candle was concerned the whole universe made a somersault, but I think it is safer to speculate it is space  itself that pushes you down when you lose equilibrium.
Space wants everything in a steady place. At the same time there is a kind of vortex, a sink in the deep-field, which induces rotation, like all orbiting in ‘free’ space. So the change in pressure of the deep-field is caused by the density and geometry of the deep-field. The energy absorption by all bodies from space is a kind of ‘sucking-in’ which is the aspect of the vortex which then
in extremis becomes the Black Hole. It is also some kind of contraction and by all means the concavity of the torus surface is the best example of the mathematical contraction of space. It is this contracted state which induces the acceleration, but it is as with expansion it is the state of local space which induces a dynamic. The local state of space defines the rate of transformation (local time). This is why the universe is in a steady state, but its convexity is perceived as expanding, redshift, but space in our model is just as steady as the surface of a torus, with local contraction (concave) and local expansion (convex).

So my present description combines these insights and gives, I think, a more understandable picture of what really happens on all levels.

 An authority on what I try to say all the way with my ‘deep-field’, is the physicist John Bell in Wiki at ‘Aether theories’, who actually uses the same kind of reasoning I do about Lorentz, superluminal speeds and quantum behaviour, elsewhere he said that the ‘ether’-concept should be chosen if only because it is so much more adequate in making things easier to explain. But nobody listens. The concept of ‘aether’ has become completely ‘out of the question’, in physics, eradicated, and see what damage is done. I think the concept of the cosmic deep-field opens complete new vistas, if only one gets the (zero-)point.

Let me insert here an appropriate quote from another authority on the matter. ( I am pleasantly surprised by uncovering such unequivocal support for my own findings by several unquestioned authorities recently).

Robert B. Laughlin: Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ‘ether’ in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that   Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil   down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in   special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .The word ‘ether’ has   extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past   association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because,   stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most   physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says   nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe,   only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. It turns out that   such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies   of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had   spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and   fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us   to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal   Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent   but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part.   The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment,   is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[3]

A relativistic aether’, let’s leave it at that. But we will return to this important issue because the conceptual reinstatement of the aether may turn out to be a key to solving the huge incompatibility problems in theoretical physics.

In the following I explain how I have deducted from the mathematics of natural number geometry the possible interaction of spherical and toroidal wave patterns of resonance which would pervade everything and go down to Planck levels, a grid of singularities in Einstein’s description, here called the ‘deep-field of space-pixalls’.

One circle rotating around an axis gives us the sphere, two interconnected circles rotating around perpendicular axes give us the (horn-)torus. The one is how energy manifests in absorption (contraction, spherical compression), that is: spherical stars, the other how energy translates in emission (toroidal expansion, radiation, momentum), that is: toroidal (standing) waves.

What I do here is constructing in my own language a scientific ontology which is based on natural number logic, geometry and harmonics (musical, overtones). It is completely based on logical reasoning on the basis of what the numbers my model generates mean in the reality of your everyday world and in the world of physics, possibly in a big way.

It looks like ‘Kindergarten mathematics’ to the professional, so this is how simple and understandable my model is, or rather, begins. This model’s ‘simple’ mathematics though could break the present mould of science. It is a different paradigm.

Permanent Creation
It should be borne in mind that my view of the cosmos is that of an integrated cyclical system, permanent creation, in which heating and cooling are two complementary phenomena. The heating is caused by radiation, which very much sustains the fabric of space by feeding into the space-pixalls, this is the pressure part. Absorption is excessively so when ‘matter’ (condensed/excited space-pixalls) is involved as a concentration of energy in the cosmic deep-field. This absorption creates the ‘lee-field’ around an object, it shields the general deepfield-pressure from the direction of the object, resulting in net-pressure towards the object, which is falsely seen as ‘attraction’, and called ‘gravity’ (gravitas). (some call this approach ‘push-gravity’ but this involves pushing particles, which is not the case here, also see Newton, Euler, above, I would prefer ‘pressure-gravity’, if ‘gravity’ is to remain as term; the best term would be aether- or deepfield pressure, it keeps everything restrained and in order).

In this logic the cosmic radiation and pressure is transformed by inducing spin, that is, into ‘mechanical’ unlimited motion and momentum in a reflection wave-field. All spin creates waves. This is the object’s inertial field. (And this is why Lorentz’s thermo-dynamic objection of ‘over-heating through absorption’ is void, the absorbed energy is transformed into momentum and field).
It are these inertial fields which give the final rigidity and high pressure in the deep-field (Dark Matter?) so in that sense Mach was right in claiming that inertial space was caused by the totality of the matter in space, but he and science in general forgot about the inertia of the spin of all these bodies ( like gyroscopes), this is the missing ‘dark matter’, it is ‘dark inertia’. It are possibly the reflection fields of the large heavenly bodies which feed into the high pressure of the deep-field at quantum level.
This draining of energy from the deep-field can be seen as cooling the deep-field to sustain the mechanical cycle of supplying and draining, to sustain the transformation by transfer of energy in radiation, or by draining, so that is: ‘cooling the cosmos’

So this is why the principle runs:

“Gravity is the cooling of the cosmos”

In the following I will set out how this relates to my present, much further developed, view of the cosmos. I now understand much better what I intuited at the time 14 years ago, but I would not have used those terms today probably and I actually had forgotten about it, I must confess, because it is so long ago I found it, but it remains a powerful comprehensive statement in its own right. And a complementary principle, added today, can run :

“Radiation is the warming of the cosmos”. (It could mean Dark Energy)

Entropy
My cosmology revolves around principles, like rotation, cooling, contraction, least resistance, continuity, equilibrium, harmonics, not the usual rigid physical laws which are derived from mathematics and usually poorly understood by scientists themselves because the mathematics is clear, but what it signifies isn’t; because the laws are not properly understood they do not interrelate which makes for the lack of a comprehensive picture. All laws are presented as independent entities like in the case of the concept of Entropy. The notorious Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics is almost sacred to physicists, unfortunately it is a dead end street. In my model there is no disintegration other than as part of regeneration, but the Bigbang cosmology is a one-way alley, from the Bang to….. where no one knows for a long time now, but it seems to be dark and cold there. Wouldn’t it?

My description of the space-pixalls ‘aligning’, ‘contracting’ and ‘expanding’ is an attempt at really describing what ‘happens’ at the quantum level of the deep-field. The more so because this deep-field is the ‘screen’ on which ‘geometrical forms’ materialize. This sounds like holography. The object is a concentration of excited pixalls in a form which influences the geometry of its environment by its reflection-field. This ‘organisation’ of space around the object results in a ‘lee-field’, which functions as a ‘sink’ through pressure-differential. The general pressure of the cosmic deep-field accelerates all objects towards each other up to the point where there is an equilibrium in the pressure of the reflection fields, that is when they are in resonance and stable orbit.

As a metaphor the deep-field reaches to the deep of the ocean, motionless and under high pressure, but the deep-field is also the currents, major and shallow, it is the waves of the ocean and, eventually, between these huge forces Life emerges as the foam on the waves, sometimes abundant but always fragile in every bubble.

Canonical Pi is a Euclidean number

The most obvious fallacy of science is that, with much talk of ‘curvature of space-time’, expansion, acceleration etc. nobody seems ever to wonder what happens to Pi (as a Euclidean number), in a non-Euclidean setting like curved space. (True, Einstein mentions it, but his π’s are smaller than canonical Pi because he measures a convex space, they should be bigger than Pi to express the contraction of the radius relative to the circumference in most cases, a concave space, this is the ‘pull of gravity’).
Except for the rings of the giant planets which are their gyroscopic razor-thin absolutely Euclidian flat inertial fields, which help to stabilize the planet in its rotation, as the moons do, there is no flat space. (without the stabilizing effect of the moon orbit, higher life would not be possible on earth, probably, it would wobble like ‘hell’). Except for these huge stabilising rotating inertial fields there is nothing Euclidean in space and certainly not at the quantum level, whatever scientists say about ‘flat’ space. The rigidity of flat of the Saturn rings is mindboggling, over some 280,000km it has a thickness to exceeding 1 km, that is effectively pure Euclidean space, but most of all shows a rigid underlying geometry.

In my system the differing values of Pi could actually be the measure of space curvature, which will show in the specific number use and geometric place a measured value takes between two or more mathematically fixed standard values.

Pi=sphere, Pi^2=torus 

This system is built on two different incompatible approximate values for Pi and Pi-squared (²), all rational numbers, which both are based on contraction of the radius as we would expect in a vortex. Pi is for the sphere (axial rotation circle), Pi-squared for the (horn-)torus (tangential rotation circle). So because of the contraction of space they are slightly bigger than Pi, but only in the thousandths, as always in this system. (Canonical Pi = 3.14159265… squared = 9.86960440..):

Pi- Sphere (7) = 22/7 = 3.142857 142.. sqrd=9.8775510..

Pi- Sphere(11) = 2800/891 = 3.14253647.. sqrd=9.8755355..

Pi- Torus = 800/81 = 3.1426968.. sqrd = 9.87654321.

Pi- Cube = 359/198  or 360/198  x  sqrt(3)  = 3.14 0 43…. smaller   or  3.14 9 18…. bigger than Pi.

We remenber that the circle formula is 2..r

the formula for the surface of a sphere is 4..r²

the formula for the surface of a horn-torus is 4.².r²

(note this is the square of the circle 2..r )

the formula for the volume of a horn-torus is 2.².r³

(note that the last formula is identical to Einstein’s formula for Riemann’s spherical space (4th dimension) which, thus, turns out to be a horn-torus volume).

These formulas are the core of these geometries and in this system the ‘horn-torus’ is named ‘corus‘, as a contraction of ‘core’ (point), ‘compact’ and ‘torus’. This is what it seems all about: the secret versatility of the torus.

The torus

The torus is among my most valued tools and in relation to the sphere it is the heart of the cosmological model I present in these pages. The torus (ring) incorporates the important ratio 10:9, in my system, which is the crucial ratio in the natural number logic on which the ‘geometry of resonance’ is based and which, as I have shown, pervades the solar system (see Solar system resonances).

As Huygens laid down the patterns of light waves, I hope to lay down here the patterns of the ‘inertial’ waves of the reflection fields which we find in the ring-systems. It are essentially these emission wave-fields of the giant bodies which form the pressure of the deep-field. All the visible and invisible heavenly bodies produce in resonance this all pervading pressure-field, which seems to increase with ever smaller dimensions. The shorter the wavelength, the more momentum it carries, the higher the pressure. That we don’t feel that pressure is the same as that we don’t feel the atmospheric pressure around us which is dramatically shown in the famous Magdeburger Hemispheres, where two span of 8 horses could not pull apart two vacuous hemispheres of 50 cm diameter. That is the pressure we live in without feeling it, believe me, there are higher pressures we don’t feel.

   

Two span of 8 horses cannot pull the vacuum spheres apart

That an electromagnetic field carries momentum and thus has considerable inertia seems overlooked (Dark Matter) by scientists, because of the ‘Nothingness’ of ’empty space’, and the wave without a medium. (In Wikipedia on relativity ‘ether’ is now equal to ‘nothingness’, all thanks to ‘special relativity theory’ and its parlance)

Momentum

The essence of a wave is its ‘momentum’, that is: ‘velocity times mass’, and this can only be carried by a medium.  in fact electromagnetic fields carry momentum, are momentum. Waves are momentum, because they move a medium, stir other things. The higher the wave the more mass it carries, this is the volume and energy of its momentum, still the substance remains in the same place.

The wave has no self-substance

Just imagine a wave rolling to the beach, its momentum is just as big as the volume of water it is able to move, this hangs initially together with the force of the wind, but even when the wind is gone the waves still carry its momentum, it is kind of stored in the volume of moving water. But now be attentive, because this is the crucial thing: the wave moves the seawater only up and down , it does not take the water with it, neither does it take you when you are in there as you know (except in the breaker, the collapse of the wave), what goes through you as feeling of the passing wave is the up and down, the wave uses the water, and you in there, to carry its momentum, but it has no ‘eigen-substance’ (self-substance), the wave is the momentum carried by the medium, it is the push of the gaseous wind over the liquid water, because there must be a medium to carry momentum, the medium materializes the wave, by carrying it as momentum. If we understand this thoroughly we can also see that any ‘object’ is just a bundle of waves carried by the deep-field and that no object has an ‘Eigen-substance’, which is the centre of my argument. We are only waves, we have no ‘own’ substance, our substance is ‘space’, ’emptiness’.

Energy sustains space

All the energy which is radiated out in space is needed for the very sustenance of space, because the space-pixalls need to be fed to keep their wave fields intact, otherwise space itself collapses as in the black hole, a border point of space, which eventually absorbs an old star or galaxy, as it ‘dies’.
Space is internally bordered by the essence of matter, a vortex obscuring the pure light, the zero-dimension. Every object is, after all, a border point of free space, it occupies space and gives it an ‘inside’, but where is ‘your inside’, all that ‘matter’ of you, where is it located; without looking around, you would have no idea.
You can see our 3-D world is the inside of a horn-torus (below) and we walk on the contracted inside surface of that torus, thinking we walk on the surface of a solid sphere below us. Every point in our space is like the border point of the zero-dimension which pervades everything but has no dimension. The pure light sparkles in every point of space, we are made of light, if only we would see.

‘Corus’ (Horn-torus), this surface is bordered by one point in the centre, inside and outside.

Geometry of universe and space-pixall

The best way to visualise this border point of our space is by imagining the volume of a ‘corus’ (horn-torus, 2.².r³, Einstein’s 4th dimension !) as our universe, this universe is bordered by one point in the centre and it is this one point, in every point of space, which keeps us unaware of the ‘dimensionless pure light void’ which surrounds us and connects us because it is One in every point of space. The space-pixall is hiding the ‘pure light’ in its heart, the pure light is all pervading emptiness itself, the zero-dimension, like the white of the page around the pictured torus and the blackness of the centre zero-point.(above). Every surface of our our everyday world is the surface on the inside of the horn-torus, around it the emptiness of the zero-dimension of pure light.

I will use the model of the torus surface to explain the contraction and expansion of space in a steady state model of the universe. In my model the whole universe is a torus, but not necessarily like the one below.


Universe as primordial cosmic wheel

The surface of the torus is the answer to the question of the expansion of space. Three quarters of the ‘corus’ surface is convex , means: in a state of expansion and one quarter is concave means: in a state of contraction; but nothing moves, it is just a state of space in which the geodesics contract and expand, which, when wrongly interpreted, gives the idea of seemingly expanding space, where only the fabric of space is changing, the deep-field density and the permittivity-speed of the field (red shifts).

Concept gravity wrong

My analysis of the solar system (see: Solar system resonances) shows the prevailing concept of gravity must be wrong because it cannot explain that the 9-fold dominates the orbital resonances of the system, but crucially that the ratios of the masses of the planets themselves are also in that 9-fold resonance. This whole concept of resonance is alien to science at the moment when it comes to gravity, because gravity is, notwithstanding Einstein’s geometry, still seen as a ‘force’, whereas in fact it emerges as the lack of something, that is, lack of counter-pressure.

In my approach gravity is the effect of the ‘lee-field’ of an object and this ‘lee-field’ of any massive object creates a ‘depression’ and ‘contraction’ respectively in the pressure and the density of the cosmic deep-field. The lee-field of an object is thus a depression in the general field, because each object absorbs pressure by rotation and so shields its vicinity from general cosmic field-pressure, at the same time it structures this spherical lee-field geometrically by a partly toroidal ‘reflection-field’ with high resonance, which results in an equatorial standing wave-field, as we see it in the ring-fields around, especially, Saturn, showing extreme rigidity in its equatorial plane (1km thick over 280,000km diameter) but also other planets and of course the Solar System centred on the sun itself.

Tunguska

Since the deep-field pressure ‘hits’ every object spherically the object transforms this impact through rotation by creating a toroidal transverse reflection field. It is not so difficult to associate the outward-rolling torus as the essence of the momentum of the wave. When energies collide in a point, they create a border-point of space from which energy bounces back, this energy is the torus geometry, sphere and torus are the essence of the transformation of space. The torus just does not play a fundamental part in science’s picture, most scientists don’t know the formula for a torus by heart (try it!, they’ll tell you they can derive it) whereas in my picture it is the essence of the spindle-torus as geometry of rotation as we see it in the equatorial bulge of inertia of a rotating body, like stars and planets (Saturn -> 10:9= equ:pol).

A nuclear explosion is in fact local destruction of the deep-field, the gigantic pressure in every point of space is unleashed by the destruction of the space-pixalls constituting the nuclei taking part in the fission. So the space-pixall turns inside out and dissolves in a gigantic release of pressure. This explosion has a toroidal shape.

The most dramatic natural example of a giant explosion showing toroidal vacuum at the very centre is the meteorite that exploded in 1908 over Tunguska in Siberia at several hundred metres height in the atmosphere. At the epicentre of the blast all trees were still standing, stripped, but upright, no side-ward pressure, but in a ring around it the damage is still visible today, a hundred years on, the red ring shows the torus of destruction. (Scientists have no explanation for this torus-phenomenon, though also at the epicentre of the Hiroshima bomb the memorial building is still standing)

 

Tunguska, 1908-2009


Reflection-field

The geometry of the reflection field, the transformation of spherical wave-fields into transverse wave-fields is the most fundamental mechanism in nature and determines the reflection-field of the object and its emerging inertial field.

We have to appreciate that every object is extended in the deep-field far beyond its appearance (with a sharp enough lens you are visible from space) this is its (your) reflection field, the beginning of which may show in the aura. It is a standing wave field, which is at the same time an inertial field and its ‘con-firmation’ of the deep-field, it adds to the stability (inertia) of the whole. So every aspect of the transformation sustains the whole as an organic process and this is also reflected in the energy equilibrium like the cosmic micro wave background radiation (CMBR) at 2.73 degrees Kelvin, 1/100 of melting ice at 273 degrees K (1 + 99), but coincidence, of course.

In my approach we see the cosmos as a self-contained integrated whole in which every aspect has, or reflects, a function. In the BigBang cosmology though everything runs in separate categories from a contingent beginning to a fading end, like an old fashioned alarm-clock unwinding its spring and ‘freezing in silence’. Instead my perceived cosmos is preferably cyclical, continuous and only locally entropic whereas the Big-Bang universe is blind and contingent, our universe ‘sees’ and has ‘purpose’, even if only it were to preserve ‘continuity’, but most of all our cosmos is ‘intelligent’ and ‘formative’. We see logic everywhere in nature, a logic of harmony and of beauty, a logic of economy, of how everything is recycled, nothing is wasted.

How nothing gets lost, until completed. (Law of Karma).

Cosmic Deep-field

The imperturbable rest of the deep-field is the basis of uniform motion, as in waves, and as is manifest in the electromagnetic fields which all have the same local speed depending on the condition (curvature) of local space. The uniform inertial motion of any object is the objects natural resonance with the deep-field, it is embedded in the motion of the field, because it is made of it. As soon as outside pressure is applied, the deep-field resists change by slowness, inertia. Inertia is in that sense the ‘stretching of time’, it is ‘slowing-motion’. But it is also the transfer of energy by increasing momentum of the object through increase of excited pixalls involved in the movement at any one moment. The higher the speed of an object, the stronger the inertial field by increasing numbers of space pixalls being involved at the same time, the higher the wind the higher the waves, thus increasing the ‘substance’ and thus the momentum.

Momentum is stored in the deep-field as the momentum of an ocean wave is stored in its movement, the more volume the wave has, the bigger its momentum and still the water (the medium) does not move, but up and down, in a cycle, the wave has no eigen-substance, is only momentum.

Entrainment

This is why momentum can be transferred in ‘entrainment’ (Huygens), (transfer of momentum and phase through space) because there is a medium; how could it be transferred through ’empty space’, this is a crucial argument for an ether

Lorentz commenting on Einsteins ‘absolute relativity’ wrote: “I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter.” (Lorentz, 1906)

This is the Cartesian view, which was held by most scientists, who nearly all presupposed an ether to explain the fact that space can transmit a force and waves of light. Newton even stated that no one in his right mind could entertain the idea that force could be transmitted through empty space, but Einstein convinced the whole scientific community that you can, through curvature of space, that is of ‘Nothingness’.

Here it is important to see that in our approach matter is an ‘excitation’ of the deep-field and that we have always to consider the paradox of the moving form through the ‘unmoving’ medium. The substance of the form is anchored, at rest, in the deep-field, this is its inertia, this is why the electro-magnetic field speed (light) is always constant relative to the object. Its substance does not move relative to the waves of the field, how could it, it is made of these waves. This is the puzzling paradox of a body’s substance at rest in the same frame of reference as in which its shape is moving, just like the moving shapes on an immobile pixel-screen.

No Space-time

This is a different approach from the Minkowski-Einstein explanation with regard to curvature of space-time, but it confirms that in a profound sense we are at rest in the deep-field, because it is the stuff we are made of; this is quite different from Einstein’s insistence on an inertial frame for every individual thing, which could be seen as my idea of ‘inertial fields’.
The ‘separate thing’ does not exist in the deep-field, it is like the volume of a wave, the momentum, it has no eigen-substance. I am often very close to Einstein’s insights, because he became aware general relativity cannot do without a medium, but was not listened to anymore in that respect, all too happy as scientists were to have gotten rid of that persistent antique concept of intangible ‘aether’.

All objects will move in the direction of least resistance in the deep-field, because of the omnipresent cosmic pressure-front of cosmic radiation, generated by the energy fields of the galaxies, neutron stars etc, so bodies will move in the direction of each others ‘lee-field’. The push of the cosmic pressure field, which secures uniform motion in the neutral deep-field, causes the acceleration in the lee-field of the object, the closer to the object the less the resistance of the counter-pressure from that direction, which falls off with the square (surface: r^2) of the distance (radius: r), and the higher the acceleration, even though the pressure of the general deep-field does not change. (It is G and very weak).
So ‘gravity’ (heaviness) is more caused by a lack of force rather than an act of force, but it is in fact an imbalance in the cosmic pressure field. This imbalance shows in the ‘curvatures’ of the ‘elastic’ deep-field, but is better expressed as local contraction or expansion of space, where the strength of the inertia in the deep-field, the permittivity of the medium, decides over the speed of a process. So with a proper use of the term inertia as the cause of a time-frame, we can probably make the concept of time in physics obsolete and have a definition of inertial space. QED.
(The ‘proof of relativity in GPS’ is due to the difference in ‘gravity’ on earth and in outer space, that is: the intensity of the lee-field, the state of the deep-field; no ‘time’-dilation, it is deep-field-dilation)

Cosmological models

The major and decisive difference between my model and the Bigbang is, that mine shows cyclical (rhythmic) and continuous order (‘permanent creation’), whereas the BigBang is a sudden origin out of nowhere, with no mention of order, no explanation of what is now (as order), but winding down eventually into disorder (entropy, linear time). So they know everything of the beginning and of the end, but cannot connect it to the world we live in. It is maybe misplaced to call that ‘cosmology’, it’s theoretical astrophysics.

Whereas scientists are again and again baffled by the subtle order of the processes in Nature, this bewilderment originates in their ignorance of the cyclical and objectively ‘intelligent’ character of the Universe and Nature as a whole, because of harmonics. Cosmos means order, Chaos means disorder. Overall we see order, not chaos, chaos is at the lower levels and in the struggle for life, cosmos is when you look up to the night sky, huge silent order.

Stone Age people may have known this and seen the deep harmony of the cosmos which they sought to express in the mathematically harmonic designs of their ‘megalithic works’, their ‘cosmic architecture’, which appear to hold the principles of resonance.

Stars and Black Holes.

What is interesting about the mathematical approach is that ‘mass’ is ignored and everything centers on what happens to points in space and their connections. This makes it immediately related to my model of space-pixalls and the mathematical foundation of reality. Riemann used the term ‘Stoff’ (dust, stuff) for the (liquid) aether which he presupposed, take note that Riemann thought granular [the liquidity of dust, the vortex of the hourglass, this is the mechanics of space (-pixalls), stretched in time, the black hole as the vortex of a galaxy].

The black hole cools the cosmos as the star heats it up, it is equilibrium in a process of regeneration. There is no conservation of energy, it is a constant stream of renewal in equilibrium with decay, but, yes, very big cycles. The Second Law is more an aspect of local decay, not a deterministic overall law, I intuit. We see in this black hole geometry the vortex, which has the dynamics of a torus, perpendicular circling creating the abyss, the cyclone.

Cyclone is like galaxy

It is similar to magnetic field lines towards a negative pole. The black hole is a 4-D monopole. It is interesting in this respect that the amount of entropy which is supposed to be in the spherical black hole is 1/4 of its surface area. Nobody mentions that this means a reduction of 1 dimension since the spherical surface as border of 3-D space gets as ‘information’ compressed into a flat one-sided 2-D circle area, .r², since the spherical surface is 4 times the great circle area = 4..r²

In my view this implies the black hole is not spherical but a one-sided flat disc, so to speak, a monopole, the border-point of 3-D space, opening to the zero-dimension. It seems to me this 1/4 reduction is rather important but nobody seems to notice it. It could also signify the 1/4 concave surface of the horn-torus
Space is limited on the inside by the zero-dimension, so a sphere becomes a one-sided circle surface with respect to the zero-dimension. The earth has no centre, no signals can penetrate it through the heart, they all bounce off because there is no other side to the centre, it is outside 3-D space, it is the zero-point as border-point of space.(Look at the ‘corus’ again)

Horn-torus or Corus

Here the importance of the torus-geometry and especially the horn-torus becomes apparent. What makes the horn-torus unique as mathematical form is that on the one hand its surface area is bounded by one single center-point and on the other it is also expressed in a 2-D square. These two unique properties give it a special relation to the sphere which properly speaking is also a unique moment in the torus-geometry and transformation of space.
In my conception of the geometry and dynamics of space the torus is pivotal, because it is the geometry of rotation. Although stars and planets look spherical they are due to their rotation flattened and consequently in my system spindle-tori. This rotation is also the origin of the waves it causes in its surroundings which are then carried by the deep-field and form a reflection field which is at the same time the ‘lee-field’ of an object. It is the ‘pressure-gravity’ emerging in the depression of the deep-field, the ‘lee’ around an object, which keeps everything rotating. The rotation absorbs the pressure and emits this energy as waves by which it shapes the geometry of the deep-field in its vicinity. So the objection of (over-)heating (Lorentz himself abandoned his own idea for this), which is held against this model is not valid, the absorbed energy is transformed into reflection wave-fields, which indeed affect the geometry of inertial space.

****

More on this subject you will find in the chapters under the heading ‘Cosmology’