Published October 13, 2021
By Mark Anderson
Recap, Part IV
In our last piece on Resonance Theory ("Resonance Theory, Part IV: Understanding Dark Energy & Matter and Einstein's Third Biggest Mistake," 9/29/21), we suggested that the ongoing conundrum of dark energy and dark matter in the cosmos could be resolved as inherent aspects of space itself, rather than as foreign bodies or novel inventions.
The response to these suggestions has been, to date, uniformly positive (see "Ethermail"), which has encouraged a response in this issue to the most obvious follow-on question: If the Hubble red- shift interpretation is either incorrect or incomplete, and if these observations can be interpreted, even in part, as the result of variations in spatial density, then: What is to be our new view of the cosmos?
In other words, if the major interpretations of red shift are now either in doubt or about to be disproved, what do we need to reexamine, to cast in doubt, to drop – and with what shall we replace them?
(For members and readers of this issue who have not yet read Part IV, I strongly suggest doing so now at the link above, in order to avoid obvious questions and pitfalls that were hopefully addressed there.)
So, what are the primary beliefs based upon the Hubble red-shift interpretations, and therefore available for reinterpretation? Here are a few:
- Distance measured to glowing celestial bodies are in direct correlation to their red shifts.
- The greater this shift, the farther from the observer, and the faster these bodies are moving away.
- The Big Bang theory.
- The age of the universe.
- The size of the universe.
- What forces, then, drive the universe's dynamics?
Let's quickly take these in order:
- In our Resonance-driven interpretation, understanding that space is not empty, and given the evidences noted in Part IV, we must be open to the suggestion that any red-shift value is the combination of both a Doppler effect shift and a shift caused by the passage of light (e-m radiation) through space itself. In other words, interaction with space itself, depending upon both the Doppler shift and the density and distance of that space between the observer and the object, provide the overall red-shift data gathered over the last century.
- Given the above, we now must replace the ideas of direct distance correlation with correlation with speed, plus the variation in spatial density times the length of the path.
- If we no longer can trust that the universe is expanding at prior rates, or even at all, but rather that those observations may be the direct result of path distance and variation in spatial density, then we must, at the least, forego the conclusion that there was a Big Bang that began a process we now find to be dubious.
- As a correlative of the above finding, we must also question interpretations of the age of the universe, which themselves were drawn largely from the same scenario, fed by Hubble red shifts.
- As a similar correlative, we can no longer be sure of distance calculations to heavenly bodies, since it is no longer a simple and direct Hubble red-shift correlation. At the very least, even without spatial density variation, we will have to calculate the contribution of the spatial constant density along the path of observation and its separate contribution to the red shift. It would appear that, from this perspective, it is perhaps true that all current distances for heavenly bodies are equal to, or less than, those held before.
- We will come back to the question of the motivating forces driving change at a universe scale at the end of this discussion.
If the above Resonance interpretations are correct, how are we to come to a new understanding of the cosmos? Obviously, by applying these and related rules and following them to a new view.
Here are a few suggestions:
- While this work awaits the contributions of those with the data, time, and mathematics to (spoiler alert) create a new spatial density map of the universe, we must view our celestial surroundings with new eyes (and theories). As we no longer need to use a Big Bang to explain an expansion that no longer pertains, we find ourselves with a different, more sustainable view, perhaps one without beginning or end: until we know more about the dimensions and speeds of this new interpretation, we are left with a default view that is rather constant. In other words, stars may come and go, light and matter may interchange, resonant space may erupt into either and subside back into dark energy and matter, but this does not require expansion, or the Big Bang explosion.
- Instead of the old view, we turn our attention to the properties of space itself, à la Resonance Theory, and work to look outward from these properties toward an understanding of what we see.
- Our programme (in the British scientific sense) becomes one of a Feynman-like explanation of how energy is represented in space, and how and when it is dense enough, in the proper geometry, to become long-lived matter, such as the electron. We look to space to ask the same question about how light (e-m radiation) results from space itself, and then the QED functions of how energy and matter – both the results of resonant space – interchange over time.
- In this sense, we are moving from the fairytale Big Bang theme to a more scientific question regarding the emergent behavior of a near-infinite (or infinite) pool of space itself. Which events emerge in the short term, or with stable lifetimes (by our definition)? While quantum physicists are likely to jump at the potential role for quantum foam here, it is not clear that leaning upon events whose sole qualities are that they are too quick or too small to measure or test is a good idea. But certainly, we can postulate that energy is contained in space in all places and emerges as long-lived matter of various amounts and types in both random (chaotic) fashion and along the more structured lines of physical interactions we currently understand.
- (I once had the good fortune to be able to ask Dr. Joseph Cronin whether one could build up electrons and atoms from the properties of otherwise-empty space in this way, and he found it quite likely, perhaps even to the point of helping explain the Lamb shift, etc.)
- Consider the Geometry of Space. One thing we have learned from looking at the process of the annihilation of antiparticles to create light is that space itself has an inherent geometry, which becomes that of light and matter (see “Resonance Theory: Part I,” 7/28/11). The symmetries of the particle zoo and the interactive properties of light and matter are all, as noted earlier, the direct derivative of the properties of empty space. Now we should add, again, that those properties of empty space include an inborn geometry. Physicists reading this will know that this is a major shift, perhaps even calling into question such shibboleths as the interchangeability of reference frames.
So, to summarize our waypoint in changing our views of the cosmos:
We look at it as the ongoing interactions of space, with its known internal properties and geometry, with itself.
As NASA chief scientist Dennis Bushnell noted in his positive response to Resonance Part IV (see "Ethermail"), many, many alternatives to the Hubble red-shift interpretation have been made over the years. He also notes that the Tired Light theory (TLT) has a close resemblance to what we might call the Resonance Cosmos Model (RCM).
The TLT was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929, about six months after the Hubble paper on the subject of red shift, distance, and expansion. It specifically suggested that the mechanism, ill-defined as it then was, attributed the red shifts to the scattering of light as it interacted with matter along the path of travel. In general, this has been expanded to scattering and interactions with matter or photons, but it still relies on some form of scattering.
To be very clear, the RCM does not. Rather, our proposal is that space itself, rather than dust, other particles, etc., is the self-interactive medium that is responsible for the shift as light moves along this path.
As best I can determine, this vitiates the most important criticisms which might otherwise be transferred to the RCM, as drawn from the TLT. The RCM model is one of the self-interaction of space, and not of collisions. Unlike models available earlier, in a world made of the void and the particle zoo, we see space as the basic construction material for both versions (dark and not) of energy and matter.
Perhaps much more interesting are the TLT criticisms based upon relativity effects of supernovae and of distant galaxies. In both cases, we are reminded of suggestions made in earlier papers on Resonance Theory.
If we step back in science history and revisit Einstein's self-avowed Biggest Mistake, ignoring the aether, and imagine the tools available to him and to astronomers at that time, the Doppler effect is obvious.
But today, through the more interesting lens of seeing space as the original material, we can marvel at new interpretations of older, still successful, mathematics. While some (Chinese) authors have posited the question of whether special relativity and Lorentz electric forces are enough to justify TLT, I will flip this approach:
Specifically, in Part III we asked: Is special relativity nothing more than the Doppler effect?
In Part IV, we suggested substituting the interpretation of special relativity's (four-dimensional) spacetime mathematics with that of spatial density and time – a suggestion we now extend to the (10-dimensional) mathematics of general relativity as well.
This new view suggests the need for a new map of the universe – not one based on the old dots and voids, balls and blackness, but one that includes dark energy, dark matter, light and matter, and space itself.
In short, we need a spatial density map of the universe.
This map would include all of the known objects, although recalibrated for distance and relative speed, together with an expanded search for density variations in space. With all of these registered, it would be the first map to show 100% of the matter and energy in the universe, as opposed to the current 5%. Not only would this be an obvious improvement, but it would also affect the future of astronomy, astrophysics, and perhaps interstellar travel.
It may be worth noting that Zwicky did an admirable job of posing all the ways to disprove his TLT. He himself ending up ruling out light scattering by dust and other materials; and he noted, in the end, the possible cause as "novel new physics." We would suggest that Resonance Theory fits this category well.
We now have the tools for creating a complete reinterpretation of our world, from matter and light in Part I to special and general relativity (Parts II and III), through dark energy and matter (Part IV) and into the Resonance Cosmos Model (Part V). All are based on the single original thesis of Resonance Theory: that the properties of physics derive directly from the physical properties of space.
The Resonance programme has proven itself to be increasingly useful over decades and fertile in fields scaling from the very small to the very large. I don't currently see any limits to its future utility in physics and related sciences, including the core failure of string-related theories to have a foundation in physical constants – something sorely needed today.
The papers in this programme to date will, I hope, provide two basic benefits: first, a plethora of new paths for search (is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle really describing an Interaction Volume along the axis of collision? Are all reference frames not identical vs. the axis of interaction? Is special relativity just a Doppler equation for the orthogonal observer? Is the Action Equation the most important equation in physics? etc.); and second, can the use of pattern recognition and pattern discovery now be seen to offer a path to fresh new major discoveries, and relatively unbiased views, of nature and physics?
Finally, at the risk of sounding at once both hyperbolic and trivial, we can say that the Story of the Cosmos is indeed the story of space dancing with itself.
Your comments are always welcome.
Re: RESONANCE THEORY: PART IV – Understanding Dark Energy & Matter and Einstein's Third Biggest Mistake
Excellent discourse wrt the resonance theory, Einstein, etc.
- There is an interesting paper that discusses some 118 reasons for a red shift.
- One of these that was pursued somewhat is known as TIRED LIGHT. This appears to be related to your discourse. It involves the effects on photons of passage through, interactions with trace intergalactic, free space matter during passages involving many light years.
- There are more theories than there are theoreticians. These theories include approaches such as one that is Tachyon-based and one involving the non-commutative structure of quantum space-time. These and others provide alternative reasons for the observations that led to the dark matter / energy mantra, which increasingly is falling out of favor.
- However, at this point my take is there are far too many unsolved problems in physics, especially the following:
- Yes, after several decades, cannot find dark matter or energy
- The infamous 120 orders of magnitude difference wrt the predictions of QED and the observed cosmological constant
- No explanations for the measured speed of quantum entanglement, greater than 10,000 times the speed of light
- What happened to all the anti-matter?
And on and on for several pages. My take from all this is we do not know what is really going on, especially at cosmological scales. However, I am an engineer, not a physicist. The apparent utter lack of physical explications wrt the now cited UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) motions and their missing atmospheric effects sans lifting surfaces, propulsion systems, etc., is apparently yet another in a long list of "unsolved problems in physics." The current theories are largely variations on a few themes, and they apparently are not sufficiently successful at this point.
Although I was a math major who only minored in physics, I love this stuff! I must say that while I've worked with some great CEOs as an employee and investor, I've never worked with one who upends our understanding of the physical world in his spare time!
Other than the name, is there anything interesting in the Resonance Science Foundation that I sent you?
[Past VP Advanced Technology, Apple
Board of Directors, Pattern Computer Inc.
Sun Valley, ID]
Mind blown! Great issue, makes sense to me.
NYS Center of Excellence in Materials Informatics
University at Buffalo
Thanks for the call today. Given your business speed and discovery accelerant. Your minutes are hours. If possible, could you have Meg send me a copy or a reference to the paper you mentioned about dark matter? I have been trying to think through the current views and actions on the topic and was convinced we were walking the wrong trail. You mentioned your thinking involved resonances which is where my head has been for a long time. I was hoping the LHC would tell us more but it did little to open any doors. I know of only one way that the Higgs Boson could do what the theory claims but that is out. Please take care look forward to the call tomorrow.
[Retired SVP, CTO, CKO
Black & Veatch
This was both brilliant and accessible to a non physicist like me.
I loved it!
Brilliant, Mark – absolutely brilliant, and utterly fascinating! I sincerely hope someone pursues this theory and wins a Nobel Prize!
[Vice President, IT Research - Infrastructure
Info-Tech Research Group
London, Ontario, CN]
Your recent dark-matter/dark-energy read was beyond fascinating and well beyond my true 'ken.'
But of much stimulating interest and great fun!
Aside from that...
Just wanted to clue you in on some behind-the-scenes effort to get this 'bad-ass' ol' world onto one-page! So that Earthlings might have an 3xD Earth to work on together in advancing, free and open source! ;~}
P.S. Nicolas is working for Thales (France Aerospace) and Miguel is one of my NASA Interns and now on the NASA dev team (just two guys)
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Patrick Hogan
To: Nicolas VILA; Guillermo Miguel Del Castillo
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 06:01:06 PM PDT
Subject: Re: WorldWind International: A Global Solution Platform
Miguel! And Nicola[h]!
"NASA and ESA cooperation" Yes!
Brilliant, beautiful and as you said, "sorely needed"!!!
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 05:48:39 PM PDT, Guillermo Miguel Del Castillo wrote:
So cool to see Sentinel (and EO in general) advancing. Landsat 9 was launched just 2 days ago.
I didn't know that Sentinel 6 was split into two spaceships. It makes a lot of sense if the idea is to have unprecedented accuracy in sea surface topography measuring. and as soon as web services are published with the datasets of them, WorldWind will be there to display them as imagery, and I'm already thinking about adding to WorldWind the capability of enabling the user to change between seafloor and ocean topography elevations. It never occurred to me to show ocean topography in 3D, with vertical exaggeration. At our project we tend to think about elevations purely as fixed terrain, but sea topography opens up a bunch of possibilities with 3D visualization. Imagine the image below, but in a globe where you can zoom in and out, and with timeseries capability:
[NASA Emeritus Earth Scientist
Returning to a Better World
Subject: Shortages and bottlenecks in the UK and the US
Mark and David (Brin),
This is a problem caused by the American and British economic models and political systems. There are no acute shortages of anything in Japan, although the weather has played havoc with tomato prices.
Note that the energy shortage in China is largely the result of the central government punishing provincial governments for failing to meet energy consumption and efficiency targets.
The Chinese are so political that the Indians are buying Australian thermal coal that has been stuck in Chinese ports - left there unused to make a point - at a discount.
All those ships off the California coast waiting to be unloaded because Americans buy way more Chinese stuff that their inefficient port system can handle.
[Author, Stealth Japan
Private Equity Analyst
and SNS Ambassador for Asia Research
Mark and Scott,
The resulting new wave of investment in Mexican maquiladora factories is long overdue. It is a win-win for us and for the world.
[Author and Physicist
and SNS Ambassador for Science Fiction
Subject: followup on covid
Mark, Berit, and Evan,
Last year [at FiReSide] you had Larry Brilliant as a guest and that was super interesting.
A lot has changed since then. We have gone from locking down to flatten the curve, to everyone is locked down but some workers are essential (like the entertainment industry in California), to a vaccine is right around the corner but we won't trust this vaccine because it was done too fast, to hallelujah we have a vaccine, to uh-oh not everyone is getting vaccinated, to uh-oh the vaccine is not sterilizing, to we are going to force people to be vaccinated, to uh-oh, the vaccines need boosters, to we almost have a vaccine ready for kids. I'm sure there are other phases that I didn't mention but you get the point.
If you use science and come to a conclusion that differs from "The Science," then you are branded anti-science or anti-vax or anti-mask.
Or if you have a point of view, you can make your science say what you want. An example of this is the much-reported Bangladesh paper on mask effectiveness. The paper is super interesting and as far as I can tell is the first RCT on masks. What is fascinating though, is that if you read the 94-page paper, the summary of the results says: cloth masks don't work, surgical masks only work in people over 50. And yet the authors offered a different conclusion, which they even published in the NY Times OpEd section: surgical masks are effective! Technically speaking, the statement "surgical masks are effective" is true. Not mentioning that they were only found to be effective in people over 50 is so disingenuous! Worse, both in the paper and the OpEd, they don't explain the curious result that surgical mask effectiveness is a function of age: how can this possibly be?
Or the FDA's advisory board said the science doesn't support giving people under 65 a booster shot unless they have underlying conditions and yet the CDC decided on a different policy.
Or our leaders still appear to believe that we are going to reach zero covid through vaccines and masking. They have not laid out any metrics that define when all of the rules will be relaxed. (Although, President Biden did say when 80% are vaccinated but then this week said when 98% are vaccinated.)
It seems that some talks that dig into the current best knowledge on approaches to deal with covid based on our current situation would be interesting. Or perhaps talks about the politicization of science would be interesting. I realize that these could be contentious but perhaps that is what would make them worthwhile.
BTW: my family and I were all vaccinated at the first opportunity. My mother-in-law died of covid before vaccines were available.
Just a thought.
[Partner, Paradox Strategies
and Past Pixar and Disney executive
I hope you will join us for FiRe 21, when Larry Brilliant will return with new views and updates on where we, and Covid, go from here.
Subj.: Extreme Weather
Mark (and Peter Wadhams),
Just for the record, so far in a year with a whole season left to go!
This is not the future, this is here and now!
Subject: Kevin Rudd: China
Mark and the SNS Crew,
Seems like an interview with this gentleman would bring much to light, especially given Mark's vision for the imminent repercussions thereof.
The Bloomberg News "Moonshot" video is now available on YouTube. In the week and a day it's been up, it has registered more than a half million views, 19k thumbs up and about 500 thumbs down. I saved the link the producer provided me and attach it here should you want to take a look at the video.
I also attach Michelle's "first light" video of her air sledge being moved by device #1, our best performing device sent to her a week and a half ago. The motion is recorded in the display in the movie as the blue trace, the output of a Philtec position sensor. Power to the device is indicated by the red and green traces at the bottom of the display. The get fat when the power is on. Only the beginning of nailing down the air sledge behavior; but a promising beginning.
Prepping device #2 for a demo next Monday and the to go to Mike McDonald at NRL.
Medium sized steps. . . .
[Propulsion Scientist and
California State University Fullerton
P.S. Michelle has suggested I write out the link: