|
Huh? A Model of Space, Infinity and Flow |
| Previous Home Page Next |
|
Working Draft Copyright (c) 2005 - 2007 Jim Imboden |
|
Chapter 9 The Universe
Everything you've learned in
school as "obvious" becomes less and less obvious as you begin
to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the
universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no
absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no
straight lines. -
R.
Buckminster Fuller This chapter is under construction.
Can the “Huh Model” model our Universe? At first glance the answer would seem to be “NO” because it doesn’t fit the Big Bang Theory, which by all of the available data looks pretty good and the “Huh Model” is a continuous flow, not a bang or sudden start of flow. Does this mean the “Huh Model” can only handle theories based on continuous flow? This model can, however, generate data similar to the observed data that the Big Bang Theory or other theories are based on. It also has crossing planes that could help in explaining radiation and temperature consistency problems that the Big Bang Theory struggles with.
Figure 9-1 shows how the “Huh Model” could give data that shows expansion and acceleration. If we were observing a universe from inside the universe where the “X” is in Figure 9-1, it would appear the universe is expanding and depending where we were located it could also give us many other different expansion and acceleration data.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
Figure 9-1
Animation of Figure 9-1 3.5 meg
I think the Huh Model can also model black holes, while I haven’t done the math, I’m fairly certain the math and what is happening in the model will match. The difference is when I think of what is happening in the model; there are huge amounts of energy being stored closer and closer to the center. Since mass is just the amount of energy stored in a given space, it follows with the black hole theory. The strangeness begins to creep in when the Huh Model gains mass – not because the black holes mass is pulling it toward the center, but rather energy is being forced into less and less space and this is what is increasing the mass. Either way the consequences are the same; you are going to be flattened into almost nothing. The biggest difference from the Black Hole Theory is the Huh Model predicts you will be ejected out of this black hole, reversed and flowing on the outside of the model, moving at a high rate of speed. What happens after you are outside the model depends on several things; the size of space you are forced in to, the number of flows you are converted in to and of course the amount of time.
Figure 9-2 shows the inside of the model with 8 pi units placed into it (there is an expanded view for comparison).
Figure 9-2 Animation of Figure 9-2 (4 meg)
Figure 9-3 is cutaway of the model showing what could be happening based on the Huh Model. The two directions of flow are forced into a wedge, and being forced together by each other with the inside going to the outside and the outside coming inside.
Figure 9-3 Animation of Figure 9-3 (1 meg)
At the end of this chapter I've included a collage of Hubble photographs that you can click on to go to the Hubble site and look at. One thing you will notice when looking at some of these pictures is the lack of neatness, closure or binding. That bothered me. How can a model seem to work so well in our solar system but fail outside of it? Then it dawned on me that I wasn't taking spacetime into consideration, I have only been thinking about things from one point of view. What would the model look like if I included spacetime? The book I use for reference is: Spacetime Physics by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler ISBN 0-201-38423-X
So far we have treated the models distances as invariant; they don't change, regardless of the point of view. When we look at pictures of distance galaxies, we are viewing from great distances (space) and also depending on the angle large amounts of time and varying addition unit’s space and time or spacetime. We need to add a spacetime correction to our models’ formula to see if we can match what we see in the photographs from space.
If you have been reading along in the chapters you know our formula now is: y=a^3/(a^2 + s* x^2). (We added s* in chapter 9).
In spacetime there are two components; space or ‘a’ and time ‘x’. When working in spacetime both ‘a’ and ‘x’ need to be in the same units and if you remember from chapter 2 in our model they are in the same units. We have been using them as (a^2 + x^2), so far so good. Let’s call a^2 (distance^2) and call x^2 (timeseparation^2), this is not an arbitrary assignment of names; ‘a’ is distance (the diameter of the circle) and ‘x’ is time or a measure of flow or change. The starting formula for our model would now be distance^3/(distance^2 + timeseperation^2).
Before continuing I need to mention there are several ways to work in spacetime; two of them are called:
Notice the only difference between 1 & 2 is their placement, and the only difference between the spacelike interval and the lower portion of our model is the ‘+’ and ‘-‘ signs.
We are working in a spacelike interval and if you look at its formula and you have read chapter 8 you will immediately see a problem; we will only be defining a model that is releasing compression and not dealing with any spacetime issues. The problem is we are moving along with ‘x’ and we need a way to get out outside the model. The reason is the difference in timeseparation will always be zero. Let’s put a variable in our formula we can change to give us a difference or delta; we’ll call it ‘d’. Our formula is now: Going back to the simple notation: y=a^3/(a^2 – (x + d)^2). Figure 9-4 shows the effect of spacetime.
Figure 9-4 The left picture is the original with no spacetime difference. The middle has a positive spacetime change and the left has a negative change in spacetime. The spacetime difference is 18 units.
Figure 9-4 shows that by taking spacetime into account we can begin to match many of the photographs from space to the model. While figure 9-4 shows considerable change is the model in the compressed mode, the change is greater if the model is in the released or relaxed mode as shown in figure 9-5.
Figure 9-5 The left is the original model in the relaxed mode and the right shows what it would look like in space time. The spacetime difference is 10 units.
As you can see the released or relaxed mode produces a bigger change with only 10 units of spacetime versus the spacetime effect in Figure 9-4 with 18 units. When spacetime is taken into consideration the model seems to come alive, being able to match much of what we see from space.
The final formula to that takes both spacetime and (compression and release from chapter 9) into account is: y=a^3/(a^2 + s*(x-d)^2).
When you view the model with its shell like construction and compare this to some of the mysterious objects the Hubble Telescope has captured over the past 15 years you can begin to see similarities.
Whenever I make comparisons of this model to things I view in nature I always keep the following quote in mind: "The general root of superstition is that men observe when things hit, and not when they miss and commit to memory the one, and pass over the other." Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Deciding if similarities actually exist between the model and the universe is for me (a model builder) not important. What is important is to ask the question, and let the physicists and scientists figure it out.
The photos that follow are from the Hubble website: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/
As you look at the following photos in Figure 9-6 keep two things in mind; could they be explained by the model and remember the Sir Francis Bacon quote above:
Figure 9-6 Photographs from the Hubble Space Telescope
Summary: The Huh model based on its one simple formula appears to be able to model much of what we see in the universe. Much of what we see as mysterious seems to have a chance of being explained with the biggest obstacle being a change in the mathematical model we use to form our mental model of the universe. Actually using the word 'change' in the last sentence is being kind, I don't think we even have a defined mathematical model today.
|
