New Cosmologist

About Outstanding Questions Corrections Bio

18 Mar 13

Time, Unity, and God?

By newcosmologist 1 Comment Categories: The Model Tags: cascading, essence states, God, philosophy, religion, Time In this post Id like to look more closely at the highest of the essence states, Time (S7) how it operates and how we can think of it, metaphysically. Please forgive me for any ramblings, I am neither a trained philosopher nor a religious scholar so I might possibly confuse certain things. I honestly mean no offense to anyone. As detailed in earlier posts, all essential elements start with 100% of their essence in the S7 state. From here, the cascade of essence states takes place, with proportions of an elements essence moving probabilistically through the S6, S5, , and S1 states. I have labeled S7 as Time because the proportion of essence in an elements S7 state determines how quickly or at what time the next possible cascade for that element is. S7 can be thought of as the metronome of the Universe, setting the pace for evolution and transformation. One thing to consider, though, is that perhaps time is merely an expression of essence in S7 much like energy is an expression of essence in S2/S1. In that case, S7 might be better labeled with some other name. When I first envisioned Cascading Essence Cosmology, I had named S7 as Time/God. How did I come up with that name? My initial thoughts were as follows:

Before the Universe and time (as the marching ever onward phenomenon) as we know it began, everything could be thought of as in the S7 state. S7 is the highest possible state. All essential elements in the Universe emerge from a state of pure S7. Because of the proportional nature of cascades, all essential elements retain some proportion of S7 forever.For example, heres a possible distribution of essence for a single element.

The distribution of an essence element after 500 cascades.

S7 connects everything together in Unity.

Im not an overly religious person, but these certainly sounded to me like some of the attributes most commonly bestowed on creator-dieties in our human philosophies, whether under the name of God, Allah, Brahma, Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah, The One, or any of the other myriad labels. Ill use God for these discussions going forward, only because that is the name most commonly known in my culture. Feel free to substitute your name(s) of choice. A question that puzzles philosophers and scientists alike is if the Universe had a beginning, what was it (if anything) that was there before the beginning and how did the Universe get started? Who/what threw the switch? In the CEC model, is God the S7 state of essence or the power that started the cascading process or both? One thing I do know is that there have been rare, fleeting moments in my life when I have felt simultaneous separation from my distinct physical reality and a Unity with Oneness. One of the most powerful of these moments happened shortly after the idea of Cascading Essence Cosmology came to me. The way I described it afterwards was that it was like looking into the face of God. There are lots of further questions about the S7 state that Id like to eventually explore, such as:

Is there a method for communication between the S7 essence states in every element? And therefore between any two elements? Does it make sense in the CEC model to think of separate beings of S7, like we think of separate Spirits, Thoughts, or beings of Space? Once an essential element cascades to mostly being in the S1 state, is there any path back to a more S7-like expression? Is God diminished in any way by the constant cascading of essence into the lower densities? Is God truly unknowable or can we through our models explain God in any meaningful way?

etc., etc.

If you have any thoughts about this and would like to share them in a respectful, open way, please add a comment to this post and lets get the discussion going. 12 Mar 13

A Matter of Scale
By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: atoms, fission, galactic groups, galaxies, molecules, planetary systems, planets, radioactive decay, reactions, scale So far, Ive been painting the mix of essential elements that make up the observable Universe with a pretty broad brush. Large densities (like stars, quasars, or black/grey holes) have been described as random mixes of individual essential elements of different distributions and sizes. In a way thats true according to CEC, the whole Universe is a mosaic of elements flowing from high density states to low density states and collecting together in like distribution (due to cohesion) over time and in another way its a gross oversimplification. Sometimes we have to simplify things to adequately describe them at least at first. The reality of the Universe, I believe, is that essential elements are organized into a series of density structures, smaller within larger, in a progression of scale, so to speak. The beauty of this hierarchy is that very similar structures and processes can be imagined at each level of scale. As within, so without. The basic structure that occurs at several scales is best pictured as that of a planetary system. A number of smaller densities (planets, comets, etc.) are held in orbit at varying distances by cohesion/gravity to a central relatively large and dense core (star). Most of the overall system is dominated by ultra-low density elements in which everything else swims. For the most part, the system, though in motion, is in a stable state occasionally disturbed by either minor or massive forces that cause expulsion, attraction, or addition of new objects.

This artists concept illustrates a young, red dwarf star surrounded by three planets. [Image: Wikimedia Commons] The next step up in scale from a planetary system would be a galaxy. Galaxies have many, many planetary systems and other objects that orbit at varying distances around a central core (usually in the form of a super-massive black hole). Again, much of the space they occupy is filled with non-dense elements (space). Galaxies have their own internal dynamics, just like planetary systems do. The first step down in scale from a planetary system could be thought of as a planet itself. Many planets are orbited by one or more smaller natural satellites (moons) or rings (Saturn). Earth is also orbited by man-made satellites and other space junk. The next step down in scale would be an atom. Atoms have smaller objects (electrons) orbiting at varying distances around a more dense core (nucleus). Once again, much of an atom can be thought of as empty space, filled with low-density essential elements.

A sodium atom with 11 electrons orbiting a central nucleus at three separate distances. [Image: Wikimedia Commons] These four scales are the ones most easy to understand the common model already describes them as orbital systems. However, it is possible that the paradigm might also be applicable at other scales. One the one side, the wavelike nature of essence entering the Space states might describe miniUniverses that exist within a larger super-Universe and these mini-Universes might behave in similar, orbital ways. (More on mini-Universes in a future post.) On the other, smaller side, because essential elements are so relatively tiny, they might go into making up what are currently quantified as quantum elements. These quanta might themselves follow an orbital paradigm.

In current thinking, there are many who believe that structures and processes do not operate the same on the large and small scales. Max Planck theorized that there are values above which one set of rules can be applied and below which another set must be applied. These are called the Planck Scale and have different values when speaking about time, mass, or length. From Wikipedia: In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale (named after Max Planck) is an energy scale around 1.22 1019 GeV (which corresponds by the massenergy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 108 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate, due to the impact of the apparent nonrenormalizability of gravity within current theories. Id like to leave as an open question at this point, whether the CEC model can encompass scales beyond the Planck scale within a single description. How can we draw further possible connections between the processes that happen on different scales? There are many, many parallels that could be drawn, but Im going to focus on just one for this post the parallel between collisions between galaxies and chemical reactions between atoms/molecules. In a simple exothermic reaction, two molecules collide, producing different combinations of their atoms (i.e., different molecules) plus the release of extra energy. For example, the burning of hydrogen: 2H2 (g) + O2 (g) 2H2O (g) H = 483.6 kJ/mol of O2 could be thought of as a collision between a galactic group with four hydrogen galaxies and a galactic group with two oxygen galaxies. After the collision, there are two similar galactic groups each consisting of one oxygen galaxy and two hydrogen galaxies. In the process of the collision and re-ordering of the galactic groups, a certain amount of energy (in this case, in the form of heat) is released. Similarly, the process of radioactive decay can be imagined as a massive expulsion from an unstable galaxy, while the process of nuclear fission can be thought of as a small, dense core being shot into an unstable galactic core, causing the galaxy to be split into two, smaller galaxies (and the release of energy and additional small, dense cores).

An induced fission reaction, resulting in lighter elements, three free neutrons, and gamma rays. [Image: Wikimedia Commons] I will further examine interactions and processes at these smaller (and super-large) scales in future posts. For now, lets keep open to the possibility that there are parallels in different scales. One other things that needs to be thought about is how a process, like expulsion, would take place across scales. For example, if a massive density (like our Sun) contains atoms of hydrogen and helium, how exactly do individual essential elements get expelled as light? Do the get expelled from the atomic level first and then travel outwards as single elements? Do they move from atom to atom on their way out, each with its own expulsion characteristics? How does all this impact the more general formulas that represent expulsion? All fascinating questions for another day. 09 Mar 13

Accretion and Expulsion

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Id like to talk some more about how massive densities (stars, black/grey holes, quasars, etc.) attract essential elements from outside themselves through the force of cohesion. This phenomenon is called accretion, which is defined on Wikipedia as follows:

The first and most common [definition of accretion] is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disc. Accretion discs are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies.

Artists impression of a binary system with an accretion disc surrounding a black hole [Image: Wikimedia Commons] In previous posts Ive mentioned how accretion fuels certain processes within specific types of densities and also can cause the transformation of a density from one type to another. An example of the former is the periodic change in luminosity of quasars, caused by accreted elements being expelled in mininovae. An example of the latter is a black hole changing into a grey hole after accreting enough elements to start expulsion at speeds greater than escape velocity (ve), yet less than the minimum speed of light (cmin). While some transformations of massive densities (like stars changing to supernovae) can occur without dependence on outside elements, accretion is nonetheless a powerful factor in shaping the cosmos. So, what is it about accretion w.r.t. a certain massive density that is of importance? 1. The composition of elements being accreted A more-dense mix of essential element densities would increase the frequency of mininovae within a quasar, for example, while a less-dense mix would increase the luminosity (in certain spectra) of a neutron star. 2. The rate of elements being accreted If the rate at which essential elements are accreted into a massive density remains relatively steady, certain results can be extrapolated. If the rate falls below a threshold rate it could cause, for example, a grey hole to eventually transform into a black hole. Alternatively, an increase in rate could eventually cause a transformation in the other direction.

Of course, changes in either of the above would affect a black hole somewhat differently than a quasar or a pulsar. The effects are specific to the current state of the massive density in question. Going by this, a sudden large change in both composition and rate of accretion could cause very interesting results. For example, if two super-massive densities were to collide, the resulting massive density could transform very rapidly (cosmologically speaking) and dramatically. [Note: All such densities and transformations would also be affected by the slow, unstoppable cascading process which transforms all essential elements to denser and denser representations in Space. However, for the sake of simplicity, for the time being we'll focus on transformations wrought through the more "immediate" effect of accretion.] Trying to quantify the exact changes in composition and rate necessary to produce measurable changes in a massive density would likely produce very complex equations equations that Im not quite ready to delve into yet. However, I think that theres enough clarity in the Cascading Essence Cosmology model at this time to put forward statements that general trends in composition and/or rate of accretion should be met with certain general changes in identified massive densities. To that end, if it becomes possible to somehow measure the rate and composition of accretion into a massive density over time, CEC would predict many observations, including the following:

A grey hole with an accretion rate continually slowing down will eventually stop expelling elements and become a black hole. A black hole with a steady accretion rate will eventually transform into a grey hole. A large (super-massive?) black hole that consumes another massive density through collision will (depending on the relative states of the black hole and the other density) transform into a quasar. A quasar with a steady (sufficient) increase in accretion rate and a stable accretion composition would display luminosity spikes (i.e., mininovae) at an accelerating rate. Likewise a steady (sufficient) decrease in accretion rate would cause a decelerating rate of mininovae. etc., etc.

Once I can find some precise data on accretions being observed, I can determine whether the accompanying observations are consistent with CECs view. If there are complete measurements of expulsion characteristics as well, all the better! 07 Mar 13

Rethinking Cosmology
By newcosmologist Leave a Comment

Categories: In the News and The Model Tags: big bang, big bounce, inflation, lecture, models, Paul Steinhardt, Perimeter Institute, quantum theory, Stephen Hawking I wanted to pass along a recent talk from the Perimeter Institute (PI) by Paul Steinhardt, titled Rethinking Cosmology. It is a great lecture to a non-professional audience about how the current cosmological model (inflation + Big Bang + Quantum Theory + ) has failed from a theoretical place and how it needs to be replaced (in part or whole) with a new theory. For any of you who havent heard of the Perimeter Institute, heres a description from its Wikipedia page: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is an independent research centre in foundational, theoretical physics located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. It was founded in 1999In addition to research, Perimeter also provides scientific training and educational outreach activities to the general public. This is done in part through Perimeters Educational Outreach team. Besides being the home of some of the worlds best theoretical minds (Stephen Hawking is a regular visitor), PI is very close to my hometown and literally across the street from one of the places I used to work. Heres the link to the page from where the talk can be launched.

[Photo: Perimeter Institute] The first 40 minutes of Steinhardts talk focusses on how the current Inflationary/Big Bang model, while fitting many observations from the Universe, does not hold up theoretically. That is, the theory falls apart in several places when examined very closely. Some quotes from his talk: The Big/Bang Inflationary paradigm we know has failed. That may not be a sentence you have heard before, but is nevertheless true.It has taken a long time for us to begin to say it out loud. How do we re-explain all this data in the context of a theory that really is predictive? What are the assumptions I was making before, because at least one of them is going to need to be changed.

Steinhardt then uses the last half of his talk to put forward his theory that replaces Inflation/Big Bang The Big Bounce. As best I can understand it, The Big Bounce basically modifies the current model somewhat to say that the/an earlier Universe contracted to a place where the process was reversed (a bounce) and expansion happened again to create our current Universe. He believes that new model can overcome a lot of the difficulties with the current model. The larger point here is that he puts it out there that the cosmological community recognizes (but are hesitant to admit) that their currently accepted theories, while good at explaining observations, are not the best theories to describe them. There are many other theories that would also explain the observations and have fewer inherent problems. I cant tell you how good it made me feel to hear someone in the field admit this growing openness to looking for new theories. 02 Mar 13

Supernovae and CEC

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: attraction, black hole, core, cosmic winds, density, dwarf star, electromagnetic radiation, expulsion, grey hole, neutron star, pulsar, red giant, shock wave, stars, supernova It strikes me that Ive left out detailing an important step in the evolution of densities: supernovae. Just because theyre fleeting doesnt mean theyre not crucial. Ill remedy that omission now. Heres the Wikipedia definition of a supernova: A supernova is a stellar explosion that is more energetic than a nova. Supernovae are extremely luminous and cause a burst of radiation that often briefly outshines an entire galaxy, before fading from view over several weeks or months. During this short interval a supernova can radiate as much energy as the Sun is expected to emit over its entire life span. The explosion expels much or all of a stars material at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of light), driving a shock wave into the surrounding interstellar medium. Cascading Essence Cosmology agrees with this definition. However, because electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and material are seen as just two different cases (at different speeds) of essential elements, theres not the same need to differentiate between them. Elements can be expelled at varying speeds from a collapsing star. So what are the mechanics that transform an otherwise normal, stable star emitting elements at a consistent rate to a supernova emitting much of its elements in a single, cataclysmic explosion?

CEC predicts that there is a tipping point in the overall proportions and mix of low-, medium-, and high-density elements that, once passed, causes a chain reaction of sorts that triggers a supernova event. A star that is constantly expelling its lighter elements through expulsion and not pulling in sufficient new low-density elements will, over time, shrink in size while increasing its overall and local densities. Add on top of that the fact that essence cascades are transforming all remaining elements into denser and denser forms over time, and its a recipe for change. There comes a time in stars of large enough size, when the remaining density mix becomes unstable. When this stage is reached, both expulsion and attraction of elements will start to happen in large numbers, causing a domino effect. Elements that shift to make way for other elements will themselves become part of their own expulsion or attraction processes. Repeat en masse. Once it gets rolling in earnest, theres no stopping it. (I hope, at some point, to develop at least general equations for determining this tipping point for any size/composition of star.)

Multiwavelength composite image of the remnant of Keplers supernova, SN 1604. [Picture: Wikimedia Commons] While many of the elements expelled in a supernova event will take the normal route and have residual velocity of cr, this chain reaction will also result in many elements being expelled at sublight (vr < cmin) speeds. Reasons for those slower expulsions could include: elements taking a non-direct path out of the collapsing density, lowering their speed of expulsion (vx); higherdensity elements that normally would not be expelled, and mechanically can only be expelled at sub-light speeds; elements that are expelled primarily by billiard-ball-like collisions with other expelling elements; etc.; etc. All of these sub-light elements would contribute to the shock wave mentioned in the definition above. Think of it as a cosmic wind of fearsome power. Depending on the size of the original star, theres two paths that can define the part of a density that is not blown off by a supernova event: 1. For large stars (over the minimum supernova size threshold), whats left after a supernova is a neutron star. 2. For even larger stars, whats left after a supernova is a black hole core.

(Stars under the minimum supernova size threshold would not go nova, but evolve more gradually into densities such as red giants or dwarf stars of various types.) The main difference between neutron stars and black hole cores is their overall density. Larger stars, because of the way their size drives their dynamics, would expel denser elements than medium-size stars would expel during a supernova event. That would leave them with significantly denser cores, so dense in fact that their gravitational/cohesion effects would initially keep all elements from escaping. (See the description of black and grey holes for more details.) Neutron stars would retain some less-dense elements mixed in with their denser counterparts. In both cases, the resulting densities are far denser than anything we would ever typically encounter and are capable of drawing in elements from the surrounding neighbourhood as fuel for their evolutions. A neutron star pulling in elements from the surrounding neighbourhood would expel much of that material as EMR. These expulsions seem to happen in streams from the stars magnetic poles (for reasons Ive yet to explain through CEC). This causes them to flash the observer regularly as the stars themselves are rotating at terrific speeds. This type of neutron star is called a pulsar. There are many more subtleties to supernovae that Ive yet to describe, differentiations that may or may not line up in some ways with the standard models classifications. 28 Feb 13

Quasars and Mininovae

By newcosmologist 1 Comment Categories: The Model Tags: expulsion, black hole, grey hole, supernova, quasar, minimum speed of light, luminosity, mininova In the last post, I discussed how a large density can go from the form of a star to a supernova to a black hole to a grey hole. This progression of representations can all be explained through the fundamentals of cascading essence and cohesion. A grey hole is a super-dense core with additional material accreted around it in a thick enough coating to cause less-dense elements to be expelled at sub-light speeds. But what happens after the grey hole stage? Surely, this is not the end of such a densitys evolution At this time, I believe there are two major evolutionary paths that large densities take from the grey hole stage quasars or [neutron stars 01/13/2013] black holes. Which route a grey hole takes depends on several factors, the most important ones being:

1. the size of the grey holes ultra-dense core (which is determined by the size of the original star), and 2. the amount of sufficiently dense feeder elements in the immediate vicinity of the grey hole. There are likely other factors to be taken into account, but lets focus on these two to start. If the grey holes core is over a certain minimum size and there is a good supply of sufficiently dense elements nearby to be pulled into it, then the density will become a quasar. This jives with current thinking on the creation of quasars. According to Wikipedia: Quasars show where massive black holes are growing rapidly (via accretion). These black holes grow in step with the mass of stars in their host galaxy in a way not understood at present. So, what is the specific process that takes a grey hole to a quasar? Once enough outside material accretes to the core, the coating on the core becomes sufficiently thick to promote the expulsion of elements fast enough that their residual velocity (vr) exceeds the minimum speed of light, cmin. At this moment, the grey hole would seem to re-ignite, shining like a star.

A Hubble picture showing a quasar core. [From: Wikimedia Commons] However, quasars are significantly different from regular stars. First, quasars are much, much brighter than the stars they evolved from millions to trillions times the brightness of our sun. In CEC, this luminosity is explained by the fact that the ultradense core of the quasar would speed up the normal process of expulsion many-fold, expelling less-dense elements at a phenomenal rate. These elements would be continually replenished by new material accreting into the quasar. Second, quasars tend to grow brighter (then less bright again) each on their own time period. According to Wikipedia: Quasars are found to vary in luminosity on a variety of time scales. Some vary in brightness every few months, weeks, days, or hours. The emission of large amounts of power from a

small region requires a power source far more efficient than the nuclear fusion that powers stars. The release of gravitational energy by matter falling towards a massive black hole is the only process known that can produce such high power continuously. Stellar explosions supernovas and gamma-ray bursts can do so, but only for a few weeks. At this time, I believe that these changes in luminosity can be attributed to (relatively) small supernova-like events, which Im calling mininovae. If the input of essential elements accreting into the quasar exceeds its ability to expel enough of those elements through normal expulsion, the excess elements of all densities continually build up around the core until they reach an amount and density-concentration that produces a similar result as in a traditional supernova a cataclysmic collapse of the cores coating which expels all but the highest-density elements. The highest-density elements from the coating would be added to the quasars core during a mininova. While the amount of elements expelled in a mininova would be very, very large, the relative luminosity of that event compared to the quasars normal expulsion would make it seem only like a temporary brightening of an already super-bright phenomenon. As long as the quasar has a steady stream of external material to feed this process, the cycle of expulsion and mininovae would continue. I do believe, however, that the frequency and intensity of those cycles would change over time. Ill try to hypothesize how these cycles would evolve in a future post. Of course, quasars arent the end state for massive densities, either. As the core of a quasar grows larger and denser (through essence cascades, attraction and mininovae) and the material available to power it decreases, there are likely other representations that its density goes through. In a future post, Ill talk about [the other important grey hole descendant, the neutron star 01/03/2013] how a grey hole can also go back to black hole form]. 25 Feb 13

Black and Grey Holes

By newcosmologist 3 Comments Categories: In the News, Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: black hole, core, cosmic winds, densities, escape velocity, expulsion, grey hole, NASA, residual velocity, speed of expulsion, supernova In a previous post, I explained how differences in the speed of expulsion (vx) and escape velocity (ve) could affect how a starlike density (D) is expressed and how it does (or doesnt) expel essential elements (E). The general formula for the residual velocity (vr) is:

When conditions are such that residual velocity for all elements expelled from density D is less than the minimum speed of light, then D itself emits no light. If the density of D is high enough, external light falling under the cohesive power of D would also not escape (i.e., pass through or be reflected) as EMR, further making the area around D black. This is what is typically known in current models as a black hole. However, according to CEC, not all black holes emit nothing. To better understand this, lets first look at the most classic example of a black hole. When a cataclysmic collapse of a density like a star going supernova occurs, the remnant core of the density becomes super-dense. The core contains only individual elements whose densities are at the very high end of the spectrum (i.e., their sizes are extremely small). All the less-dense elements have been expelled in the supernova event. These cores are so dense, their elements so tiny, that any further expulsions from within them never exceed escape velocity. (For all elements, ve > vx.) Any element being expelled beyond the cores boundary falls back to the core. The cohesive power of the super-dense core also attracts other neighbouring elements, creating the hole part of the black hole, with a boundary at the event horizon. All of this happens through the force of attraction the counterpart of expulsion. However, most black holes in the Universe do not stay in this simple formation for very long. As noted above, these densities attract other less-dense material through their great cohesion/gravity. As mentioned previously, nothing can speed up or slow down an elements natural cascade of essence between states. This means that this newly attracted material does not get immediately crushed to infinitesimal size itself (as common theory indicates). Instead, this new material accretes to the black holes core, coating it like a gigantic gobstopper. As this attracted material coats the core, the cohesive force of the core on individual elements is immense. The process of expulsion on the lighter elements in the coating happens rapidly but, in most cases, the escape velocity from the density is still too great for these elements to escape. Instead they end up falling back towards the density. As the cores coating gets thicker and thicker (as more material falls into the black hole), the speed of expulsion of elements in the coating increases eventually exceeding the escape velocity of the density. When that happens, the black hole changes into a grey hole, a density that appears black but is, in fact, expelling slow-moving elements.

Winds are emitted from a grey hole. (Photo: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss) These grey holes would emit streams of low-density elements at sub-light speeds, elements that would be perceived as cosmic winds. Each expelled element would affect the space around it in an infinitesimal way but, in combination, they would produce a very measurable effect. A 2012 article from NASA, entitled NASAs Chandra Finds Fastest Wind From Stellar-Mass Black Hole, shows windlike effects coming from a black/grey hole: Astronomers using NASAs Chandra X-ray Observatory have clocked the fastest wind yet discovered blowing off a disk around a stellar-mass black hole. This result has important implications for understanding how this type of black hole behaves. The record-breaking wind is moving about 20 million mph, or about 3 percent of the speed of light. This is nearly 10 times faster than had ever been seen from a stellar-mass black hole. Astronomers believe that magnetic fields in the disks of black holes are responsible for producing both winds and jets. The geometry of the magnetic fields and rate at which material falls towards the black hole must influence whether jets or winds are produced. CEC predicts that these winds are coming not from the magnetic fields of a black hole, but from expulsion of elements from a grey hole at sub-light speeds. There may be fields directing the winds, but they are produced by expulsion from inside the grey hole. I also believe that other types of cosmic objects (e.g., quasars, neutron stars, etc.) can also be explained as variants of these densities with super-dense cores. But that is for another day 23 Feb 13

Attraction: The Counterpart of Expulsion

By newcosmologist 1 Comment

Categories: The Model Tags: attraction, cohesion, densities, density, expulsion, gravity, kinetic energy Theres been a lot written in recent posts about the concept of expulsion the moving away from a density of a less-dense essential element. It has been shown how expulsion is started and how it accumulates into acceleration of the element away from a prevailing density. From a previous post: The basic rule [of expulsion] is this: if the decrease in the net force on a specific element if it were moved away from its current position is less than the increase in the net cohesive forces of all other elements assuming that moving away happens, then the move happens. Some of the net forces are transformed into kinetic energy of the element moving away. However, expulsion is only the case for what happens when a less-dense element in a moredense local area is moved away from a neighbouring density. What about the case where a moredense element is in a less-dense local area in the neighbourhood of a density? What happens then? Attraction. Close to the classic concept of gravity attracting two objects to one another, the process of attraction in Cascading Essence Cosmology seems familiar. It describes the process that allows the re-arrangement of many less-dense elements to make way for a more-dense element to move closer to the relevant density. In this way, it is the counterpart if not the opposite to the process of expulsion. Both, however, result in a drive towards denser and denser states of a localized area. [I'm even willing to consider that expulsion and attraction can ultimately be described mathematically as a single process, but for now I'll continue to treat them separately.] To recast the example from the earlier introduction to expulsion to describe attraction:

if the net force on element A is 30 units in the direction of the prevailing density and if that element were moved slightly towards the prevailing density, increasing its cohesive force to 40 units and if the other elements around it moved slightly away to make room for it with the resulting net decrease in their cohesive energies of 5 units then the slight movement would happen and some of total energy would be transformed into kinetic energy for the moving element (in the direction of its prevailing density).

This motion would end up accelerating as the element in question moved closer and closer to the local density, until such a time as the elements local density was sufficiently high to counteract its net attraction (kinetic plus cohesive energies) to the prevailing density. From the description of expulsion:

Think of it this wayIf moving an element from its current position allows for a sufficiently more dense configuration of elements, then the move will happen. Otherwise things will remain as they are. The same thing holds for attraction. Theres not much more that needs to be said about attraction at this time it is a much more understandable process than expulsion as it is so close to the familiar concept of gravity. 21 Feb 13

The Speed of Expulsion

By newcosmologist 3 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: black hole, cosmic winds, densities, density, escape velocity, expulsion, galactic winds, grey hole, relative speeds, residual velocity, solar winds, speed of expulsion, speed of light In two earlier posts, I explained how less-dense essential elements can be moved away from more-dense densities through the process of expulsion, and how once an expulsion starts it can become chain reaction of sorts, expelling the element further from the center of density at faster and faster speeds. The process of expulsion (and acceleration) for an element continues until the element reaches a local density equal (or less) to its own density. At that point, its speed of expulsion from the larger density is fixed and it continues on its current path at that speed, subject to all the other forces in its environment including cohesion/gravity back towards the density it just left. The formula for the speed of expulsion (vx) of an essential element (E) from a density (D) is:

where ve is the escape velocity of E from D and vr is the residual velocity of E from D. The residual velocity is the ultimate speed at which E will travel once it escapes the cohesion/gravity force back towards D. As an example, if a rocket blasted off from the moon at a velocity of 2000 m/s and the escape velocity was 1500 m/s, then the residual velocity would be 500 m/s. Since residual velocity is merely a byproduct of the other two values, lets rewrite the formula like this:

While I have yet to figure out exact equations for the functions vx and ve, I can still describe three broadly important cases of residual velocity.

Case 1: vr = cr
As proposed in earlier posts, since in CEC electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is really just essential elements travelling at great speeds towards an observer and those elements are subject to cohesion like any other essence, the speed of light is not a constant. The speed of light in a vacuum (c0) that is used in current models can be thought of instead as the maximal residual velocity from expulsion (denoted cr the residual speed of light). Any regularly shaped (i.e., spherical) large density, like a star, where the local density values rises continuously as the center of density is approached, will expel essential elements regardless of their individual densities at a speed equal to cr + ve. This might seem hard to believe at first, but think of it this way. For every element E in density D there is a natural distance from the center of D at which that element begins its expulsion journey. The denser the individual element, the closer to the center of density that natural distance isand the further outwards the element has to accelerate before leaving the density. My theory is that for every such element:

This explains why we experience the EMR from stars, and other starlike objects, as all travelling at the same, uniform speed cr or 299,792,458 m/s. I know this is a big leap to make but in future posts Ill try to back it up with further thinking, formulas, and possible tests.

Case 2: 0 < vr < cmin

If we experience essence as EMR when it is travelling sufficiently fast relative towards us, then it follows that there must be a minimum velocity at which essence is perceived as EMR the minimum speed of light. Well represent that velocity as cmin. Exactly what the value of cmin is, I am not certain but I currently believe it to be fairly close (within 5%?) of cr. Further refinement of this value will occur as my investigations continue. There are two major subcases in which a large density might expel an essential element at speeds between 0 m/s and cmin. Firstly, the essential element in question might have, through a random combination of other elements in its local area, started its expulsion journey from a place further from the center of density than it natural distance (described above). In that case, the element will have had less distance over which to accelerate and will not achieve the cmin speed. Secondly, if the density doing the expulsion is non-continuous (i.e., discrete) in the changes in its local density values, then an essential element in an outer density area would have both less distance to accelerate as well as a higher ve to overcome. Both would combine to lower the elements vr. This would be the case in many grey holes. Grey holes in CEC are densities that

appear like black holes but are actually still expelling elements under the cmin barrier. (More on grey holes in future posts.) In both subcases above, the expelled elements are experienced as cosmic winds, including (but not limited to) solar winds and galactic winds.

Case 3: vr < 0
From our residual velocity formula:

it is apparent that if ve > vx, then vr < 0. This is the case when an element, undergoing expulsion, does not reach escape velocity and falls back under the cohesive sway of the density where it began. Basically, it is pulled back to the density after briefly escaping (hence the negative velocity). This can happpen in any density, but is best known as a characteristic of black holes. In a true black hole, all expelled elements have vr < 0. (More on black holes in future posts.) The interplay between vr, ve, and vx explains the characteristics of some other fascinating phenomena, like supernovae, quasars, neutron stars, etc., and Ill detail each of these objects in their own future posts. In fact, I believe the a more complete understanding of the process of expulsion will lead to some new classes of objects being defined and hopefully observed! 19 Feb 13

New Measures, New Models

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Background and Odds and Sods Tags: big bang, dark energy, Einstein, history, Hubble, model, relativity, telescope, Very Large Array It occurred to me one day, shortly after the idea of Cascading Essence Cosmology came to me, that our models of the Universe go through a sea-change each time we gain the ability to see and accurately measure greater and greater distances. Every time there has been a significant increase in our ability to observe the Universe, theres been an accompanying shift in how we explain what were seeing. When pre-historic humans had no tools and lived in uncleared forest, they could only see a couple of miles at best. Their models revolved around great turtles and coyote and insect people. These were the things they could see and interact with and which influenced their worldview. Then, when people started clearing the land and travelling across the oceans, their ability to see and measure further increased. Their models revolved more around anthropomorphic gods,

human-like beings that reflected their new-found power and vitality using that power to explain the differentiated world in which they lived.

Andreas Cellariuss illustration of the Copernican geocentric system, from the Harmonia Macrocosmica (1660). [from Wikimedia Commons] Eventually, in the early 1600s, the telescope was invented, allowing astronomers to see the moons of other planets and shortly afterwards the cosmological models shifted from Earthcentric (geocentric) to Sun-centric (heliocentric). Large, reflecting telescopes started to be built in the mid- to late-1800s and soon afterwards it was realized that the sun is not the center of the Universe, but merely one star in one galaxy among many. Einstein proposed his theories, including the Special Theory of Relativity, around this time. As reflecting mirrors became larger and more accurate, astronomers could look further and further out into space seeing countless more galaxies and objects like quasars, neutron stars, and supernovae. In the mid-1900s, Hubble and Hoyle proposed the Big Bang Theory to explain why the Universe appears to be expanding. In the 1990s, adaptive optics allowed people to look deeper and deeper into space. The redshifts observed of emergent supernovae lead to the new model of a Universe with accelerating expansion, explained by the concept of dark energy.

The Hubble Space Telescope [from Wikimedia Commons] The launching of the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit in the 1990s and the perfecting of radio telescope installations like the Very Large Array, are currently allowing us to see clearly to the very edges of the observable Universe. Some of the phenomena were discovering arent fitting well into the Einstein-Hubble model. A new model is needed for the new observations. Whether that model is Cascading Essence Cosmology or something completely different, I believe in 10 years we wont be using the current model at all but its replacement instead. 17 Feb 13

Thought and Spirit Super-States

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Background and The Model Tags: Enlightenment, essence states, ideas, Information, Inspiration, Space, Spirit, Thought, Time In an early post about the seven proposed essence states, I suggested that the super-states between Time and Space (in the order essence cascades happen) might be Spirit and Thought. My reasoning was that if all things in the Universe, like Time and Space themselves, were merely different expressions of one basic type of essence, then if some things exist outside of Time and Space, they must have their own, independent states. It struck me that two obvious things that exist outside of Space (and Time, in some ways) were Thought and Spirit. How would Cascading Essence Cosmology handle them, if not through their own states? If I was going to add them to the model, I wondered, should they have a more single-state representation (like Time) or a super-state representation (like Space)? Since I see Time as the more rigid orchestrator and Space as a more nuanced expression of essence, I felt that both Thought and Spirit were more like Space in their complexity. So, like Space is split into Expansion (S2) and Contraction (S1), I needed to deconstruct Thought and Spirit each into two component states. My best guess at those states was: S6 = [Spirit:Enlightenment] S5 = [Spirit:Inspiration] S4 = [Thought:Ideas] S3 = [Thought:Information]

Why did I choose Enlightenment above Inspiration and Ideas above Information? I considered

the Space states of Expansion and Contr action similarly to the way the duality of Yin & Yang is thought of, yin (Expansion) is meant to represent the open, diffuse side of life, while yang (Contraction) is meant to represent the closed, focused side of life. According to Wikipedia: Yin and yang are actually complementary, not opposing, forces, interacting to form a whole greater than either separate part; in effect, a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, (for instance shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation. The specific entity that goes to make up Thought is Information. When Information is expanded upon and opened to interpretation, Ideas emerge. Deconstructing Spirit was much more challenging. Spirit needs to be distinct from Thought above Thought, in a sense. What is the focused side of Spirit? The best I could come up with is Inspiration, as defined as:

inspiration
noun 1. an inspiring or animating action or influence: I cannot write poetry without inspiration Enlightenment would be the result when Inspiration is opened and looked at as a more inclusive whole. I realize that all these four states have a certain quality of unknowableness about them, but I will be leaving as much room as possible for these states to adjust as I continue to build the model. There are many, many details that need to be filled in about Thought and Spirit. One interesting, yet unanswered question is What are the parallels to energy in Space in these other super-states? If you remember, in CEC energy is the expression of cohesion on essence in

Space. What would the expression of cohesion on essence in Thought be? Knowledge? Communication? What would the expression of cohesion on essence in Spirit be? Love? Another concept to examine is the existence of beings primarily in Thought or Spirit. We (humans) are beings primarily but not exclusively in Space. Could beings in Thought or Spirit be described within our Space-based reality? Do they have anything to do with the religious concepts of angels or God (gods)? How would such beings interact with beings in Space? With Space itself? With each other? Im also very open to the idea that there are concepts in both Thought and Spirit that, as beings primarily in Space, we may never know even exist much less be able to accurately define. There may also be other super-states, making CEC a (2n+1)-state model instead of a 7-state model. I realize that this post raises more questions than it answers, and I hope to do my best to eventually address each of these new questions. 14 Feb 13

Outstanding Questions
By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Odds and Sods Tags: questions, unanswered Like any good brain candy, thinking about Cascading Essence Cosmology always leaves me hungrier than when I started. Heres a partial list of questions (both physical and metaphysical) about Cascading Essence Cosmology that I am still puzzling over:

Why did our Universe begin? What started the overall essence cascade effect? How does the Universe end? Is it cyclical in nature? When this current Universe ends, does another one with different states begin?

Is our Universe the only one or are there (infinitely?) many other Universes in existence

simultaneously? Are there further states or super-states below Space states that cannot be detected and therefore are lumped into the S1 state? Can CEC be used to help explain the concept of being alive? The concept of consciousness? The concept of souls? How would the Universe appear and function for beings primarily in other (higher) states? Beings of Thought? Beings of Spirit? What are the effects on us of cascade waves passing through the higher states? Does it increase our potential connections to Spirit and Thought? Does the fact that time is the highest state (S7 ) preclude the possibility of manipulated time travel forwards and/or backwards? How can CEC be used to describe what happens at the atomic level? Sub-atomic level? Quantum level? Should it even be attempted? How is the concept of antimatter handled by CEC? What are the exact formulas that describe the Universe under CEC? What are its defining constants? What, if anything, would be the practical applications of CEC?

Ill continue to add to this list as new questions occur to me (or are asked by readers add a comment!). When any question from this list is addressed, Ill link it to the appropriate post. If you want to weigh in on any of these topics, please add a comment and well start the conversation! 13 Feb 13

Dark Galaxies: New Wave Expansion

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment

Categories: In the News and Predictions and Tests Tags: cascades, dark galaxy, dark matter, density, essence waves Heres a quote from a recent science story that caught my attention: First Direct Detection Sheds Light on Dark Galaxies. Most people think of galaxies as huge islands of stars, gas and dust that populate the universe in visual splendor. Theory, however, has predicted there are other types of galaxies that are devoid of stars and made predominately of dense gas. These dark galaxies would be unseen against the black backdrop of the universe Dark galaxies are composed of dark matter and gas, but for some reason they have not been able to form stars, said Martin Haehnelt, Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. Some theoretical models have predicted that dark galaxies were common in the early universe when galaxies had more difficulty forming stars partly because their density of gas was not sufficient to form stars and only later did galaxies begin to ignite stars, becoming like the galaxies we see today. As I detailed earlier, in CEC the concept of dark matter is replaced by all of space being made of essential elements at such low densities and relative velocities (to us) that we experience them as empty space. However, that ultra-low density essence still interacts through cohesion/gravity with densities like galaxies and stars, helping explain how they behave. Also, the concept of essence waves was revealed in an earlier post. Because of the timed and probabilistic nature of essence cascades, new essence is introduced into Space in wavelike bursts, timed roughly 13 Gyr (Gyr = billions of years) apart. Taking all that into account, CEC predicts that these dark galaxies, instead of being collections of gas that have been unable to coalesce into stars and galaxies for billions of years, are instead the entry-point of new, Wave 3 essence into our Wave 2 observable Universe. Each dark galaxy is like a Universe-in-miniature, accepting new non-dense elements which eventually will, through the process of cohesion, form new stars and galaxies. In fact, these dark galaxies, as repositories for new cascading essence, are one of the main drivers behind the observable expansion of the observable Universe. Some further information from the interview that article was based on: TKF: Did dark galaxies exist only early in the history of the universe? HAEHNELT: They exist today but are not easy to see. There is actually a firm prediction from our current theory of galaxy formation that there should be many dark galaxies in our own local group of galaxies, which includes the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies but also many smaller objects. Many small satellite galaxies in the Local Group are actually expected to be dark galaxies. However, many of them lack enough stars to be detected by starlight, and they also have very little gas at the present time. TKF: And are these dark galaxies relics of the very early universe, or have they formed more recently?

HAEHNELT: Theyre a mixture. Some should be very old, some would have formed later, and some may have joined the Local Group relatively recently. CEC would predict that most of these dark galaxies would actually be approximately the same age coinciding with the time between the start of an essence wave entering the Space superstate and the time that newly cascaded essence starts forming typical stars and galaxies. This means there would have been a surge in dark galaxy creation about 12-14 Gyr ago, then a slowing down in formation, and another increase in formation starting around 1 Gyr ago. The objects detected in this report are from Wave 2 and created about 12-14 Gyr ago. Any further studies should find another acceleration in dark galaxy creation within our local galactic group area. TKF: How large are the dark galaxies youve detected? CANTALUPO: These things are probably as small or smaller than the Magellanic Clouds near the Milky Way. That means they are probably five or six kilo parsecs, [or about 16,500 to 19,800 light years across. By comparison, the Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years across.] So they are really dwarf galaxies. If the dark galaxies discovered within our local area are indeed fairly small, it should be a helpful indicator to show how far we are currently into Wave 3 has it crested yet or has it finished passing by altogether. Similarly, data from Wave 2 dark galaxies could help in understanding the general pace and mechanics of cascading and essence waves. 11 Feb 13

Bio
By newcosmologist 4 Comments Categories: Background Tags: bio, ideas, mathematics A little bit more about meif youre interested. My name is Darren Redfern and Im 48 years old. My lovely wife Tamara and I live in a small town in Ontario, Canada the same small town I grew up in. Ive spent time in many other countries including India, Nepal, Egypt, Israel, Greece, France and the UK, but Canada is my true home, where my heart is. While we have our own problems (including a current government Im frankly ashamed of) its still the best country in the world. But most people feel that way about home, wherever it might be. Heres a favourite picture of me taken by Tamara in 2007.

Ive always been an ideas guy. For as long as I can remember, Ive been inventing things. As a boy I invented words and new ways to count and organize things. This lead to a love of mathematics which, in turn, lead me to complete my B.Math at the University of Waterloo. In the 1990s I started a technology company and invented and patented one of the first naturallanguage search tools for the WWW. For the last seven years, Ive worked as Director of Research at a Toronto-based software company, dreaming up new products and algorithms all day long. Ive also always been a writer. My friend Nick and I wrote a novella in Grade 11 (10?) and Ive dabbled in fiction and non-fiction ever since. When I started my post-University career, I worked for a company called Maplesoft, which builds the Maple mathematical computation software used by scientists, researchers, engineers, and educators. I eventually ended up being Computational Software Series Editor for Springer-Verlag (a huge technical publisher out of Germany and New York) and authored or co-authored a series of books on Maple, Macsyma, and Matlab. When Im not designing algorithms or digging into the structure of the cosmos, I spend my time travelling with my wife, playing cards, writing (and solving) cryptic crosswords, singing, bowling, working with the local Green Party, and walking. Im not sure what else to include here Im not used to talking about myself. If anyone has any questions about my background, Im only too happy to answer. Darren 08 Feb 13

Expulsion: The Basics (Part 2)

By newcosmologist 3 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: acceleration, cohesion, densities, density, expulsion, expulsion events, kinetic energy, stardust, stars, Woodstock In Part 1 of this post, I described how the interplay of elemental density with cohesion leads to the expulsion of less-dense essential elements from more-dense local areas when the circumstances are right. An expulsion event causes a less-dense element to move further from the current center of density, gaining some kinetic energy in the process. Lets pick up from there. An expulsion has started, a less-dense element is starting to move away from its local area, and it has gained a little momentum in doing so. Now that element is in a different local area (slightly further from the center of density). If that new local area also contains enough more-dense elements, then a similar inequality to the one that caused the initial expulsion event is present. In fact, because the element is already moving directly away from the center of density, its net force towards that center is significantly lower than before. This means a second expulsion event is very likely to happen. When this second expulsion event occurs and the more-dense elements move in to take the place of the expelled element, additional kinetic energy is transferred to the expelled element, increasing its velocity. Now the element is in a third local area moving even faster and the process repeats itself. At some point, if this continues, the kinetic energy of the expelled element will become higher than its cohesion force towards the center of the density. At this point, there is nothing holding the expelled element back. As long as it continues to be in higher-density local areas it will continue to move directly away from the center of density at ever-increasing speeds. This acceleration will continue until the expelled element reaches a local area with a density lower or equal to the density of the expelled element itself. At that point, the element stops accelerating and follows its path with its current kinetic energy. This compounding expulsion process is fairly easy to imagine when thinking of an object like a star. Stars are fundamentally round with more-or-less-uniform radial density layers. So a lessdense element buried within the star would reach a certain local threshold state and then be expelled out through the rest of the stars density layers until it reached the surface of the star and headed out into the Universe as electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, etc.). However, in CEC all densities are capable of expelling elements merely at different rates and different velocities. As long as there are mixes of elements with significant enough differences in individual element densities, there will be the chance of expulsion.

When I think of expulsion, it always makes me think of the Joni Mitchell song, Woodstock, where she says: We are stardust. We are golden. And weve got to get ourselves back to the garden. It is believed that the atoms that makes up our bodies were all formed by past explosions of stars so we are literally made up of the dust of stars. However, in Cascading Essence Cosmology, because of the dance of cohesion, essential elements, and expulsion, there is no need to draw distinctions between different types of densities between us and the stars. We are not stardust. We are stars. 06 Feb 13

Expulsion: The Basics (Part 1)

By newcosmologist 5 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: cohesion, densities, density, empty space, expulsion, kinetic energy, observable Universe In past posts, Ive explained that the force of cohesion, as expressed in our 3D observable Space super-state, draws essential elements together into specific densities. What Ive failed to chronicle is how that dance of cohesion and elements is choreographed and what are all the outcomes of that dance. The main process that cohesion causes other than a trend to density is called expulsion. Im going to stick to a very high-level explanation of expulsion in this post (and the next post) for two reasons. One, its too complex a physical CEC phenomenon to explain fully in even two posts. Two, to fully describe it requires a lot of involved pictures, diagrams, and animations and Ill freely admit that I am graphically challenged. Because in the CEC model there is no concept of empty space all of space consists of essential elements of ultra-low density in order for any two elements to move closer together (through cohesion) the intervening elements must somehow be moved out of the way first. Expulsion is this moving out of the way of an element we say the element is expelled. However, expulsion of an element requires a certain energy and doesnt just happen because two other elements on either side have a cohesive force between them. All the forces involved in the expulsion, from

both those elements doing the expelling and those elements being expelled, must be in a certain balance (or lack thereof) in order for the expulsion to occur. The basic rule is this: if the decrease in the net force on a specific element if it were moved away from its current position is less than the increase in the net cohesive forces of all other elements assuming that moving away happens, then the move happens. Some of the net forces are transformed into kinetic energy of the element moving away. So, for example,

if the net force on element A is 30 units in the direction of the prevailing local density and if that element were moved slightly in the opposite direction and the other elements around it allowed to take its place and if the resulting net increase in the cohesive energies of the other elements was 35 units then the slight movement would happen and some of total energy would be transformed into kinetic energy for the moving element (in the opposite direction from its prevailing density).

I realize that might sound somewhat complicated, but it is actually a simplified explanation of the overall process and I cant think of a more succinct yet relatively complete way to put it at this time. (Though, if I do figure out a simpler way, Ill be sure to add it to this post.) Think of it this wayIf moving an element from its current position allows for a sufficiently more dense configuration of elements, then the move will happen. Otherwise things will remain as they are. But, you might ask, if an area of space is in a static state (i.e., no elements are moving), then why would it ever change? Would it not stay in that state forever? Remember, though, that elements are never in a static state forever the process of cascading means that every element is trending towards more and more dense representations over time. When an individual element gets more dense, it will be more strongly attracted (by cohesion) to other more dense elements that are closer to the center of any nearby overall density. Since the timed nature of cascades provides that the more dense an element already is, the more quickly it will cascade into even denser states, the larger, less-dense element will eventually be compelled to move away through the increased potential system cohesion! While the system will remain static for long periods, eventually the balance will tip enough and presto! expulsion. The higher the mix of ultradense elements in an area, the more quickly expulsions will happen. In Part 2 of this post, Ill show how expulsion becomes a continuing reaction and leads to some very familiar phenomena. 04 Feb 13

Energy vs. Essence

By newcosmologist 2 Comments Categories: Background and The Model Tags: essence states, cohesion, Time, Spirit, Thought, Space, EMR, energy, energy types Exactly what is it that makes up the Universe at its most fundamental level? For several months after starting to explore my new cosmological model, I believed it was energy. Having been encouraged all my life to frame the observable Universe in terms of energy (E = mc2, conservation, W = fd, gravity, etc.), the all-too-convenient path was to extend my existing beliefs around energy to form the building blocks of the new CEC Universe. Even in the non-Space states (Thought, Spirit), I reasoned, everything could be put in terms of energy. I even had originally named my new model Cascading Energy Cosmology. But within a couple of months I started to run into all sorts of trouble reconciling parts of the new model with an energy-based Universe. Cohesion wasnt working the way it should. Neither were the energies inherent in electromagnetic radiation. Was the amount of stuff in an element somehow related to its amount of energy expressed in Space? I really couldnt get the concepts to work together much less the formulas. One day, after some particularly frustrating and unproductive explorations, I finally realized that I was working under an energy bias. I had to take a whole new look at the model. Id already realized that two of the defining things in CEC were a fundamental, unified element of stuff and cohesion, which makes elements of that stuff interact with each other What if energy was not the elemental stuff, but merely an expression of the force of cohesion on that stuff in Space? Then, in our 3D Universe, cohesion would imbue stuff with energy. Different types of energy (e.g., kinetic, potential, thermal, nuclear, etc.) could all be transformations of that initial cohesive energy. The realization gave me a whole new surge of (forgive the term) energy! While this new paradigm didnt completely solve all the issues I was having with the formulas I was building to explain certain observations, it did remove some of the major contradictions I had been facing. Then it also followed that in the super-states of Thought, Spirit, and Time, cohesion and essential elements could express in ways completely different than they do in Space. What would be the Thought-based equivalent of energy? Spirit-based? I still havent discovered answers for these questions, but they constantly intrigue me. Now that I had abandoned the idea that the fundamental elements of the Universe were made of energy, the next logical thing was to figure out what they were made of. The thought occurred to me that maybe I didnt really need to know exactly what it was that made up everything perhaps it wasnt something that was knowable at any level. Perhaps stuff was just stuff. But what to call it? Stuff, while somewhat descriptive, isnt really a term that gives you confidence in

a theory. What term could convey the essential nature of these elements at the same time providing a certain quality of undefinability? Essence! According to my favourite online dictionary:

essence
noun 1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features: Freedom is the very essence of our democracy. 5. (Philosophy). the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc. From that point, the model was reborn as Cascading Essence Cosmology. 02 Feb 13

Electromagnetic Radiation: Essence, Speed, and Density

By newcosmologist 2 Comments Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: speed of light, Einstein, Space, density, electromagnetic radiation, EMR, light, x-rays, radio waves, gamma rays, relative speeds One of the fundamental principles of Cascading Essence Cosmology is that everything in the (observable and non-observable) Universe is made of a single type of stuff, or essence. Light, planets, stars, thoughts, and even time itself all come from different expressions of essential elements. The consequences of this unity of essence are numerous and wide-ranging. In this post, were going to look at one particular consequence related to electromagnetic radiation in the Space super-state. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a broad type of energy that propagates through space (and other media as well). As most of you know, EMR includes visible light, x-rays, radio waves, gamma waves, etc. Heres a graphic detailing the electromagnetic spectrum:

The Electromagnetic Spectrum (from Wikimedia Commons) The current theory is that these EMR waves travel through space at a constant rate, the speed of light. Typically, these waves are seen as being emitted from cosmic objects such as stars, quasars, supernovae, etc., traveling through interstellar/intergalactic space, and then reaching detection devices like our eyes or telescopes. But, if everything in the Universe is made of the same type of essential element, what is it about the elements that make up EMR that causes them to be experienced as light, radio waves, etc.? How are they different from elements that arent experienced as EMR? I believe that essential elements are experienced as part of the electromagnetic spectrum based strictly on their individual densities and their relative speeds compared to the observer. So, for example, a very non-dense element that is traveling towards a detection device at the speed of light would be experienced as a radio wave. Something somewhat denser would be experienced as visible light and something denser yet as gamma rays. So, in a manner of speaking, any essential element can be experienced as EMR if it is moving fast enough towards the observer. Some interesting conclusions that follow are:

What we experience as outer space is merely a collection of ultra-non-dense essential elements that are not moving at a sufficient speed relative to us to be experienced as EMR. If a person were to travel through space at close to the speed of light, then space around them would be experienced as EMR. The person themselves would be experienced as EMR by those people not moving at the speed of light. (This contradicts Einsteins Theory of Relativity, but Ive already said I think that theory is flawed.)

The more dense an essential element traveling at light speeds, the more it would penetrate other densities (matter). This explains why gamma rays are so dangerous to anything in their path.

In a future post, Ill details how essential elements are expelled from densities at the speeds required for them to be experienced as electromagnetic radiation. 31 Jan 13

Dark Energy: No Mysterious Force

By newcosmologist Leave a Comment Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: acceleration, big bang, dark energy, dark matter, essence waves, Expansion, gravity, Hubble, redshift, Space In my last post, I described how the currently accepted theories of dark matter and dark energy were what helped me spawn my new model, Cascading Energy Cosmology. I explained how the observations currently explained using dark matter could be better handled within CEC by the fact that all of space itself is essence, that is, not empty, not without influence. In todays post, the subject of dark energy is tackled. According to Hubbles view, the Universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating in pace. These conclusion were reached by examining the redshift values for more and more distant objects in the cosmos. On the surface, this acceleration would not seem to make sense in a Big Bang Universe as the power of the primordial explosion peters out over time, you would expect the expansion to decelerate or, at the very least, remain constant. So, how could science reconcile the apparent contradictions between the Big Bang theory and Hubbles observations? They invented the idea of dark energy. Dark energy is a hypothesized form of energy that pervades the Universe and behaves differently than normal energy. It is supposed to make up 74% of all energy/matter in the Universe. This dark energy repulses other energy/matter and that characteristic is used to explain the unexpected cosmic acceleration. In fact, this new energy apparently interacts with gravity in such a way that it didnt start causing actual acceleration until around 5 Gyr (billion years) ago. Since Cascading Essence Cosmology does not ascribe to a Big Bang origin of the Universe, it isnt strictly necessary for the new model to have an equivalent for dark energy. In fact, I have my doubts about the conclusions drawn from redshifts altogether, and Im not even sure the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. However, I can discuss how CEC explains basic expansion of the Universe in both accelerating and non-accelerating cases.

As mentioned in a previous post, new essence primarily cascades into the Space super-state in waves caused by the timed nature of cascade events. When an individual essence element cascades into the S2 and S1states, it is introduced into our observable Universe, takes up space (volume) and has attraction (cohesion) to other elements. But, where does this introduction, this insertion, happen? Since the other super-states (Thought, Spirit, and Time) have no concept of linear space or distance, a newly introduced element could go anywhere. While I havent worked out the details of the precise choosing mechanism, I believe that new elements are inserted into 3D space at a point where the average density of currently existing elements closely matches the density of the element being inserted. Since the cascading process dictates that essence will always cascade into S2 before eventually cascading into S1, that means that introduced essential elements will be of ultra-low-density and will therefore be most like what youd find in the furthest reaches of intergalactic space. These countless, ongoing, timed insertions of ultra-non-dense essential elements into intergalactic space would cause many, many rapid localized expansions of space. Taken all together, on a cosmic scale, these individual expansions could be construed as a more uniform expansion of the observable Universe just what current theories have predicted and techniques observed. (Ill get into much more detail about this Universe-expansion process in future posts!) What about the proposed acceleration in expansion? Well, if the Universe is currently in a phase of a Cascade Wave where the amount of essence being introduced into Space over time is increasing, then the subsequent expansion of the 3D Universe would be seen to be accelerating. As waves pass through, that acceleration would eventually turn to deceleration, then acceleration, then deceleration, etc. At some point, when not enough essential elements are being introduced to make up for the contraction caused by cohesion, the observable Universe would be seen to be shrinking. Overall, CEC predicts a cosmic dance much more interesting than dark energy could every imagine. Ive only begun to understand the rhythms and movements of that dance. 30 Jan 13

Dark Matter: No Empty Space

By newcosmologist 3 Comments Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: dark energy, dark matter, density, Einstein, empty space, Hubble, model, observable Universe, size As you might have read in an earlier background post, the idea for the Cascading Essence Cosmology first came to me while watching an episode of a popular science program about dark matter and dark energy. I felt that both those currently accepted cosmological principles were so far-fetched and required the current Einstein-Hubble model to be stretched so far to

accommodate them, that they were no longer viable. Instead of trying to shoehorn them into the currently accepted cosmological model, I felt that the observations they were trying to explain were better suited by a brand new model that would fit these observations much more naturally. Hence, CEC was born. Dark matter, as it is currently theorized, is a type of matter that exists throughout the Universe but cannot be directly detected. It does not emit light nor does it reflect it, so it cannot be seen. It is said to consist of certain types of particles that hang out in interstellar and intergalactic space. These dark matter particles are said to make up 84% of all matter in the Universe (with visible matter making the other 16%). One of the most important observations that dark matter is used to explain away is that large objects like galaxies do not behave (rotate, disperse, etc.) as the current models can predict they should by adding up their visible matter. So dark matter was invented to make up for the discrepancies and make the models work. One of the unspoken principles that current cosmological models are built on is that space, at some level, is empty a matterless void. CEC states that everything in the Universe including space itself is made up of one type of essential elements of varying essence distributions. There is no empty space! Space is merely essential elements that are weighted more heavily towards the S2 state versus the S1 state; that is, they are therefore very large in size and therefore very low in density too low, in fact, for us to be able to measure them directly (with our current technologies). Nonetheless, they are still there. As these ultra-low-density elements have more and more of their essence cascade into S1, they get denser and denser, until they are dense enough to become visible matter and eventually get pulled into the core of a galaxy, star, or other visible density. Because space is so vast, there is room for uncountable numbers of these ultra-low-density elements more than enough room for these elements to add up to something like the 84% of total stuff predicted by dark matter. So, CEC predicts that there is no mythical type of matter hanging out in space, but that space itself is a type of ultra-light matter/energy. Each galaxy has its own contingent of space-like elements that are part of its overall density and contribute to how it moves and behaves. These elements travel in lockstep with the stars, planets and other visible objects in that galaxy. So the reach and influence of a galaxy extends far beyond what we can currently see. In fact, each galaxy claims its own portion of the observable Universe. Just because the essential elements that make up outer space are mostly undetectable, CEC does not predict that they are all identical, that space is completely uniform. In fact, a wide band of possible S2/S1distributions would be experienced by us as space. However, cohesion will still gather like distributions together, causing a certain clumping of distributions over time. In fact, studies using gravitational observations to predict the location of dark matter around target

galaxies show it to be in definable clumps or clusters. Those clumps are just the more dense space-like elements, the ones that are easiest to detect in this manner. In the next post, Ill take on the subject of dark energy. 29 Jan 13

Density and Densities

By newcosmologist 1 Comment Categories: The Model and Predictions and Tests Tags: cohesion, densities, density, end of Universe, Milky Way, Space, Spirit, super-states, Thought, Time In the previous post, the general concept of cohesion was discussed. Cohesion is the force of attraction that causes essential elements to interact with one another. In the Space super-state (our observable Universe), cohesion draws elements together (i.e., gravity) in relation to the similarity of their distributions and their closeness in space. In other super-states (Thought, Spirit, Time), this cohesive attraction takes other forms. In this post, I want to talk about a fundamental consequence of cohesion density. Ill stick to examples in the Space super-state for now. As discussed previously, the size (volume) of the expression of each individual essential element in Space is dependent on its distribution in the S2 (Space: Expansion) and S1 (Space: Contraction) states. No essence currently in either S2 or S1means no expression for that element in Space. An element in Space gets smaller and smaller as more and more of its essence cascades into S1 and, because it maintains its total essence, its density increases. As essential elements of smaller size and higher density group together through cohesion, they also contribute to an overall density for their group. Such groups of elements, brought together because of cohesion, are themselves called densities. What defines individual densities is that they move together in similar frames of reference. Stars, galaxies, planets, you and I are all examples of densities. While you are on planet Earth, you can move with separate motion within Earths frame of reference therefore you are a separate density from Earth. As an example of densities, lets look at our Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way is one huge density, consisting of all its stars, dust, planets, supernovae, comets, and the very space that binds them together moving together in the frame of reference of the larger Universe. (Or perhaps in the frame of the local group of galaxies.) Each star within the Milky Way is its own density as well, moving in the smaller frame of reference of the galaxy. I hope this make a clear distinction between density (the mathematical construct of stuff/volume) and densities (objects that move together in a frame of reference).

Why is this important? Well, the CEC model predicts that the Universe (in all its states) is on a never-ending path to denser and denser densities. In fact, the whole of Space itself can be thought of as one huge density eventually destined to come together in one singular, massively dense and therefore compact density. (More on the end of the Universe and the path to get there in a future post.) In the meantime, interactions within all the essence states continue to drive towards the overall goal of concentrating groups of stuff into densities. While weve talked about the complex ramifications of cohesion and density within Space in this post, theres as much to explore in the other states as well. What is a density in Thought? In Spirit? In Time? How do these densities interact with one another and with other states? How would we, in the Space state, interact with densities in other states? All food for thought. 28 Jan 13

Cohesion
By newcosmologist 6 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: cohesion, distance, distribution, gravity, Space When introducing the basic principles of Cascading Essence Cosmology, I introduced the concept of cohesion as: Every two individual essential elements are attracted to each other based on the similarity of their current distributions the closer their distributions, the higher the attraction So, cohesion is an attraction that exists between every two essential elements in the Universe. Without it, each element would just cascade in isolation, ignorant of and uninfluenced by the rest. Cohesion is what makes thing happen it is what builds densities (in Space, Thought, Spirit, and Time). I hope Im making it clear how important cohesion is In the Space super-state cohesion is expressed as the force that draws essential elements closer together. In current models, this force is called gravity. While cohesion and gravity obviously are explanations for the same types of observations, their explanations differ in some important ways. (Ill detail these differences over several, upcoming posts.) As mentioned above, cohesion between two essential elements is stronger when their current distributions are more similar like attracts like, so to speak. The following is the general formula for the cohesive force, FC, within all states:

where, a and b are the two essential elements in question.

In Space, the cohesive force is also dependent on the inverse square of the distance between the two elements (R). Heres the formula for that:

The formula for gravity (in current models) is:

where G is the Gravitational Constant and m1 and m2 are the two masses in question. Remember that all essential elements have the same total amount of essence in them, so Gm1m2 would always be the same in CEC and can be removed from the cohesion formula. So, the only meaningful difference between the formulas for cohesion in Space and gravity is the factor of the summation of the squares of the differences in distributions. Two elements expressed in Space with identical distributions and right next to each other would have a very high cohesive force, where two elements with very different distributions and set apart would still experience cohesion, but just on a much, much smaller scale. In fact, as two elements approach exactly the same distributions, the cohesive force between them approaches infinity, theoretically. (Im still working out the ramifications of that anomaly and whether a change to the formula is required to remove it.) However, the odds of any two essential elements expressed in Space having identical distributions is extremely small. Cohesion, as described above, is the driving force of the Universe its impact stretches across most aspects of Cascading Essence Cosmology. In the next post, the universal trend towards density will be discussed. 26 Jan 13

Space, Size, and Density

By newcosmologist 4 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: Contraction, density, essence states, essence waves, Expansion, observable Universe, size, Space, volume So, with countless essential elements all cascading their essence between the seven states in massive waves, how does all this activity go to make up what we know as the observable Universe as planets, stars, and galaxies? First I need to explain some basics about space, size, and density.

Space

As explained previously, the two lowest states, Expansion (S2) and Contraction as (S1), combine to define the super-state, Space. Until any essential element has more than zero percent of itself expressed in the Space super-state, it does not appear in Space. That is, it has no expression in our current, observable reality. It cannot be observed directly and neither does it exert any influence on the physical fabric of Space. However, once S2 > 0 for an essential element, that element then has expression in and influence on Space. It is the combination of all essential elements where S2 > 0 that makes up everything in our observable Universe. How those elements change and interact is what drives the evolving nature of our Universe.

Size
The foremost expression that an essential element has in Space is related to its size. In threedimensional space, size is the same thing as volume. The size of an essential element, sizeE, in Space can be calculated from its essence distribution in S2 and S1 with a formula like:

where e is the mathematical constant sometimes called Eulers number (approx. 2.71828). I havent worked all the kinks out of this formula yet; at this time its an educated guess thats good enough to illustrate the concept of size. The following plot shows the possible ranges for sizeE.

A plot showing the size of an essential element depending on the amount of essence in its two lowest states, S2 and S1.

The more essence in S1, the smaller the size of an essential element. Since essence cascades towards S1, where it accumulates, the nature of essential elements is to get smaller in size over time. In fact, as S1 trends towards 1 (100% of the essence in an essential element), the size of that element trends towards 0 it gets really, really small.

Density
Since every essential element in the Universe has the same overall amount of essence within it, when an essential element expressed in space gets smaller and smaller, its essence density increases. Essence density (referred to from now on as just density) is simply the amount of essence for each unit of size (or volume, in 3D-space terms). Density is a very important concept to understand in order to make sense of how our Universe operates and will be the subject of several future posts. To truly understand the implications of elements having higher or lower density in space, you need to understand something about cohesion first. 25 Jan 13

Essence Waves
By newcosmologist 4 Comments Categories: In the News, Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: age of Universe, cascade events, cascade history, cascades, essence waves, galaxies, Milky Way, Space, Time There are an unimaginably large number of essential elements that make up our multi-state Universe. In the last post, I detailed how essence might cascade within a single essential element over billions of years. What would be the effect across the Universe as a whole of the combined but varied cascading of all those essential elements? Ive already established that cascade events for each individual essential element happen at time intervals that depend on the amount of essence in its S7 (Time) state. As the amount of essence in S7 gets lower, the cascade events happen more frequently. Also, specific cascades between states occur with a probability proportional to the amount of essence in the higher state. Knowing all this is fine, but to really understand the overall process its necessary to determine how the Universe began. Has it always been evolving or was there a beginning moment? I believe there was a beginning (time-zero) moment for our Universe and that some event triggered the cascading process to start. For the time being, lets put aside the questions of who or what started the Universe and what, if anything, was there before the beginning.

Assuming a single Universal beginning, and knowing that each essential element starts with 100% of its essence in S7, I believe that all the countless essential elements went through their first cascade event at the exact same moment the first moment in Time. So, what does that mean for the Universe? Well, if we assume that the probability of a cascade happening between S7 and S6 for each beginning-state essential element is 30% and that the proportion of the essence in S7 that cascades to S7 is 36%, then 30% of the essential elements in the Universe now look like this:

The distribution of an essential element after a single cascade has happened. while 70% remain like this:

The distribution of an essential element when an initial cascade didnt happen. Since those 30% that have had a cascade occur now have a smaller amount of essence in S7, they will all have their next cascade event occur much sooner than the next cascade event for the 70% of elements that retain 100% in S7. In fact, if my estimates are correct, those 30% will have their

essence cascade throughout the seven states (much like the animation in the previous post) before the next cascade event even happens for the 70% left behind. Each individual element in the 30% will have a unique cascade history (because of the probability factor in the system), but the combined effect averaged across the entire Universe will be smooth and predictable. Essence will cascade collectively through the states until it appears in the Space states and starts to form galaxies, stars, and the very space they are contained within. I call this massive, collected cascade a wave. Once the 70% remaining at 100% in S7 reaches its next cascade event (all at the same time), 30% of the remaining 70% (or 21%) of the Universes essential elements will start cascading as the second wave (Wave 2). And so on, with relatively smaller and smaller waves occurring, over the lifetime of the Universe. Each wave will mean a localized (in time) burst of essence into the Space states, causing the formation of many galaxies of similar ages. I believe that we are currently either near the end of Wave 3 or at the beginning of Wave 4 of the Universe. Until recently, all galaxies in the (currently) observable Universe were thought to be around 13.7 Gyr (billions of years) old. These galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are part of Wave 2. However, recent observations have brought about the possibility of younger galaxies. From a report on possible young galaxies from the BBC: The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted what may be the youngest galaxy ever seen in the Universe. The spring chicken may be as young as 500 million years old so recent that complex life had already arisen on Earth by the time it started to bloom. Professor Thuans coresearcher, Yuri Izotov, from the Kiev Observatory, Ukraine, called the finding extraordinary. One would expect young galaxies to be forming only around the first billion years or so after the Big Bang, not some 13 billion years later, he said. Young galaxies were expected to be very distant, at the edge of the observable Universe, but not in the local Universe. And, other observations have opened the door to galaxies far older than 13.7 Gyr. From a news release from NASA: An enormous string of galaxies 300 million light-years long has been discovered in the remote Universe, challenging existing theories about how the Universe evolved. The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large. The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early Universe and line it up in strings this large, Dr Francis said. There simply hasnt been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal. I am proposing that our currently observable Universe exists within a sea of ancient Wave 1 structures and is currently seeing the birth of new Wave 3 galaxies within it. If Wave 4 cascades have already begun, the essence from this wave have not yet reached the Space states. This would make the Universe ~40 Gyr in age, not the ~14 Gyr theorized.

Of course, we could also be in a much later wave but more on that in future posts. Ill also write more later about how and where I believe that new wave essence is introduced into the Space states. 23 Jan 13

The Mechanics of Essence Cascades

By newcosmologist 6 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: cascade events, cascades, distribution, essence states, highest state, lowest state, probability, proportion, Space, Time

The Theory
So, how does the process of essence cascading from state to state work? As mentioned in a previous post: within each individual essential element, essence transforms from state to state, starting with the highest state and cascading to the lowest state. Essence can only cascade from one state to the next lower state at any one time, though such cascades can occur between all, some, or none of the adjacent states at each cascade event. For each essential element, these cascade events happen:

in a timed fashion directly based on the amount of essence in the essential elements Time state (S7); the more essence in S7, the longer between cascade events, probabilistically based on the current essence amount in each state; the less essence in a state, the less likely essence will cascade from it to the next lowest state during the current cascade event, and proportionately based on a fixed proportion of the current essence amount in each state; whenever a cascade happens between states, it will always be of the same proportion of current essence from the higher state.

Im not sure exactly what the values are that define the timings, probabilities, and proportions. These values will be refined as the model evolves. For now, Im using my best guess as a starting point.

An Example of One Essential Element

So, how does this play out for a random essential element? Representing the essence distribution for an essential element as a bar chart, each essential element starts off with 100% of its essence in S7.

The distribution of an essential element before any cascades have taken place. The next cascade event when it happens might include a cascade between S7 and S6. If it does include a cascade, the amount transformed by the cascade would be proportionate (to the 100% in S7) and would create a new distribution.

The distribution of an essential element after a single cascade has happened. The next cascade event could cause a cascade between S7 and S6 and/or between S6 and S5. The process repeats over the subsequent cascade events for this element. After 500 cascade events, more than half the overall essence has cascaded from the S7 state all the way into the S1 state. The distribution after the 500th cascade event is:

The distribution of an essential element after 500 cascade events. Here is an animation of the distribution for all 500 cascades (warning large file 9MB). The timing of the animation does not reflect the actual relative timing of the cascade events.

An animation of the 500 cascades for an essential element. As Ill explain in future posts, the actual time it would take for an essential element to reach the cascade500 distribution would be measured in billions of years. Because the cascading process is heavily reliant on probability, the actual cascade history of each essential element in the Universe will be unique even if they all start and end at roughly the same distribution. Not only will the distributions be unique, but the timing of the distribution changes will also vary significantly. This description dealt with only one, random essential element. In the next post, Ill talk about the combined effects of essence cascades from the countless individual essential elements that make up our Universe.

22 Jan 13

The Essence States

By newcosmologist 4 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: cascades, essence states, Space, Spirit, super-states, Thought, Time With this post, I am going to start digging a little deeper into some of the concepts raised in earlier general posts. One of the fundamental ideas in Cascading Essence Cosmology is that essence the stuff the Universe is made of exists in multiple states simultaneously. These states each have their own, unique characteristics in how essence and cohesion are expressed in them. While the exact number of states and their nature are still in question, I am currently working with a 7-state model. These states should not be thought of as containing one another the higher states do not contain the lower states. There is a more indirect relationship between states, one ruled by the fact that essence cascades from state to state (from higher states to lower states) in a semi-orderly fashion. States come in pairs, called super-states, that interact more closely with their partners than with the other states. The exception to this rule is Time, the highest state, which stands alone and acts as among other things a control mechanism for the cascading process. The following is my current thinking on the general nature of the seven states. The super-states are listed in bold, while those states in square brackets, [ ], are still in the realm of speculation:

7. Time 6. [Spirit:Enlightenment] 5. [Spirit:Inspiration] 4. [Thought:Ideas] 3. [Thought:Information] 2. Space:Expansion 1. Space:Contraction I can understand how the idea of Thought and Spirit having a separate existence from our 3D reality can be a little foreign or jarring. It certainly hit me fairly hard at first. However, I think youll eventually see how well it fits into the model and how it helps explain some interesting phenomena that traditional science tends to dismiss as well as some very standard and measurable observations! (Quantum entanglement, anyone?)

The super-state pairs work together to express in a given realm (i.e., Space, Thought, or Spirit). The lowest super-state pair is Space, which contains the two individual states of Expansion and Contraction. It is quite possible that there are more super-states I am hoping that further exploration of observations will help me to reverse-engineer exactly how many essence states there are and what are their natures. This is one of the most exciting aspects of the model for me. Ill refer to the nth state as Sn from now on. So, Time is written as S7, Space:Expansion as S2, and Space:Contraction as S1. States should not be confused with dimensions. While space has dimensions (at least three maybe more), in CEC it is the expression of the lowest two states. The higher states do not have the concept of dimension as we currently know it. In future posts, Ill write about how beings experience the multi-state Universe, depending on which state they are primarily in. In the next post, Ill give more details on the process of essence cascading between states. 21 Jan 13

Some Broad Conclusions

By newcosmologist 3 Comments Categories: Predictions and Tests and The Model Tags: big bang, cascading, conclusions, densities, dimensions, Einstein, essence states, laws of conservation, relativity, speed of light [If you haven't already, please read the about document before reading this post - it'll help set the scene for what I'm trying to accomplish here.] The last post introduced some very broad principles under which Cascading Essence Cosmology operates. Now Id like to suggest some conclusions, again very broad, drawn from those principles. Ive intentionally chosen conclusions that fly in the face of currently accepted scientific thought partly to show how very (wonderfully?) different CEC is and partly to shock you into some bigger thinking of your own.

Speed of Light
If everything in the Universe is made of one single type of essential element, then light doesnt get special treatment. Therefore, in CEC light has mass and is affected by gravity (cohesion) and the speed of light is not a constant (nor an absolute maximum) as postulated by Einsteins widely accepted Special Relativity.

The Big Bang

According to currently accepted thinking, the Universe started in an unimaginably huge explosion from a single point of infinitely dense energy/matter. In CEC, essence is introduced into the measurable Universe in a much gentler, phased-in process. Changes in the size of the Universe are largely based on the ongoing changes in the size and number of the individual essential elements that are within it, instead of the on the remnants of a single primordial explosion.

Static-Energy Universe
The laws of conservation of energy state that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Current thinking has expanded that to imply that all the energy that is currently expressed in the Universe is all there ever will be that the Universe is consistent with regards to the total energy it contains. In CEC, the total number of essential elements in the Universe remains unchanged, but the amount of those essential elements expressed in space increases over time as more and more essential elements enter the Space states. While on the surface this appears to contradict the laws of conservation, when the Universe is examined across all CEC states, it doesnt.

Dimensions vs. States

Many recent models of the Universe include extra dimensions. For example, M-Theory uses 11 dimensions in total. CEC is a model that does not rely on dimensions, but rather on essence states that interact with one another, but do not contain one another. Also, some multidimensional models assume that extra dimensions are beyond or above time. In CEC time is the primary state in the model and controls all other aspects of our Universe through controlling the cascade process.

Matter Transmutation
According to current thinking, matter only transforms from one element to another (e.g., hydrogen to helium) through the processes of radioactive decay and/or nuclear reactions (natural or manmade). While equivalents of these processes are included in CEC, the fundamental transmuter of matter from one element to another is the ongoing, unstoppable state cascade process of essential elements and the energetic forces that subsequently collect those elements into higher (or sometimes) lower densities. I know it sounds like Im thumbing my nose at Einstein, Hubble, and the other foundational thinkers of the past couple of centuries. Not really. These people were the groundbreakers in their fields they were the ones leaving the accepted paths of their times and trying to come up with new models that fit observations that the old models couldnt accommodate. Its just that, since then, newer observations have become possible and for these newer observations we need even newer models. If Im thumbing my nose at anyone it is at those thinkers of today who are still trying to make outdated models fit.

[One of the things that encourages me the most is that these days I am not the only person theorizing that the Big Bang / Constant State / Inflation models might be wrong, or at least inadequate. In future posts, I'll try to cover what some other theorists are proposing.] I also know that the above conclusions all need much more detailed explanations I promise to provide them as this journey continues. In my next few posts I am going to leave the broad behind and start going a little deeper on a few subjects already introduced. 20 Jan 13

Basic Principles of CEC

By newcosmologist 7 Comments Categories: The Model Tags: cascade events, cascading, cohesion, distribution, essence states, model, principles, rules, unity So, what is Cascading Essence Cosmology? Cascading Essence Cosmology (CEC) is a model that attempts to explain how the structure of the Universe came into existence, how it evolved over time to what we experience today, and how it will pan out in the future. On the surface, this seems like no small task. A good model, however, simplifies things so that they can be explained through a handful of basic principles or rules. From these rules, the model can then explain a much larger set of observations. The best models explain not only what is currently seen in a system (like the Universe), but also fit new, previously unseen observations cleanly and without a lot of adjustment. [When I use the term "Universe" I mean everything that exists. Not just the observable space around us (the cosmos), but the things we can't directly observe as well things like time and thought. Try to kind your mind open to the possibility of a Universe that contains wonders you can't touch or see through a telescope.] The following is my current list of fundamental principles of CEC. Each one of these is crucial to the model and will be explained more thoroughly in future posts. Im hoping that I wont need to add too many more principles, but odds are that there are a couple I havent figured out yet.

Elemental Unity (Everything is made of the same stuff)

Everything in the Universe is made of one single form, or essence. Everything that exists is an expression of elemental pieces of this essence (called essential elements), that cannot be divided into smaller stand-alone elemental pieces. Each essential element has the exact same amount of total essence. Essential elements cannot be created or destroyed.

Combined Essence States (Everything has parts)

Each essential element is expressed simultaneously and proportionally in several well-ordered states, and the sum of the essence in all its states always remains constant. The current proportions in each state for any particular essential element give the element its distribution. The current CEC model includes seven states, with Time being the highest state and Space (Expansion and Contraction) being the two lowest states.

Essence Cascades (Stuff moves between those parts)

Within each individual essential element, essence transforms over time from state to state, starting with the highest state and cascading to the lowest state. Each element starts with the distribution of 100% of its essence in the highest state and cascades through the states gradually over time until it has 100% of its essence in the lowest state. Essence within an essential element can only cascade from one state to the next lower state at any one time, though such cascades can occur between all, some, or none of the adjacent states at each cascade event. No outside force can influence the cascading or distribution of an essential element it will be what it will be.

Cohesion (Like attracts like)

Every two individual essential elements are attracted to each other based on the similarity of their current distributions the closer their distributions, the higher the attraction. This attraction is called cohesion and cohesion is expressed differently in the different states. For example, in the lowest (space-related) states, cohesion is expressed as the energy essential elements create between each other (called gravity in current thinking) and is additionally dependent on distance. In higher states, cohesion has different expressions and state-specific dependencies. Now that youve read the underlying principles of Cascading Energy Cosmology, take some time to sit and digest them. What happened next for me was making the connection between these principles and some pretty amazing outcomes that followed from them. In the next post, Ill list some of the more basic but awesome outcomes I saw. 19 Jan 13

Beginnings
By newcosmologist 3 Comments

Categories: Background Tags: background, dark energy, dark matter, feedback, model, through the wormhole Like all the best journeys, this one started unexpectedly. My wife Tamara was out-of-town for the weekend and, lacking her good influence, I was staying up way too late, drinking beer and surfing for science videos. Yeah, I know, thats a pretty lame thing to be doing on a rare bachelor weekend, but thats just my speed. I caught wind of a weird things in science series called Through the Wormhole one of those pseudo-science programs that puts a Hollywood spin on pop-science topics, making them sound controversial and suspenseful. The perfect mind candy for a lazy Saturday evening. The thing that sold me on it was its host/narrator, Morgan Freeman, one of my favourite actors and with a voice I cant resist. As Tamara says of Christopher Plummer, Id happily sit and listen to him read recipes. Anyway, I watched a couple of 40-minute episodes and then, before I knew it, it was 2 a.m. and I couldnt stop. Id been through topics like Is Time Travel Possible?, Are we Alone?, Does Time Really Exist?, and several others with equally hokey titles. Then I started on some more cosmological titles, like What Happened Before the Beginning? and The Riddle of Black Holes. The more of these I watched, the more uncomfortable I started to get with the theories being reported as gospel. Finally came the episode Beyond the Darkness, centered around the hypothesized existence of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is an unseeable substance that can only be inferred from its effects on other things. Without dark matter, the current observations of how things like galaxies operate dont jive with the prevailing scientific models. Apparently, there is more than five times as much dark matter in the Universe as normal I-can-see-you matter. Dark energy is a strange form of energy that makes up 73% of the total energy in the Universe and, against all common sense, at some point in time started causing the Universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Again, without dark energy, the current models cannot adequately explain this apparent acceleration. At this point, around 4 a.m., my mind snapped; it was like my consciousness blew a fuse. Id known something of dark matter/energy before I do have a scientific background. But Id never felt before how truly ridiculous it seemed that science, when faced with reality (observations) that completely contradicted its current thinking, just made up seemingly ridiculous stuff in an attempt to shoe-horn the new reality into their old thinking. Why not instead come up with a simpler explanation for the observations through a new model that would encompass both those new observations and the historic ones? Thats when the foundational questions of Cascading Essence Cosmology hit me like a revelation. What if the Universe was expanding not because of a Big Bang but because new space was being introduced over time? What if that new space was the result not of new stuff/essence being created, but of essence changing states from something outside of our 3D

space experience to something within it? What if all essence evolved cascading from higher states to lower states over time and only once it entered into the lowest states could we actually observe or measure it? With that, the seeds of CEC were planted. A new cosmological model for a new Universe. The model grew and grew in my mind and for the next days and weeks I was feverishly typing out ideas, formulas, and connections in new areas black holes, supernovae, galactic generations, the nature of light, and on and on and on. I couldnt stop expanding the model it was like I was taking dictation from a recording that I couldnt shut off. I design new systems and processes for a living and often my best ideas seem to come to me fully formed but this experience was like nothing Id ever been through before. That was over seven months ago and since that time life has gone on. Theres been frustrations at work, illnesses in our family, joy, sadness, and grief through it all, the model has continued to evolve. Ive shared some of the high-level concepts with a select group of friends (you know who you are!) and their valuable feedback has greatly informed me. Ill be recasting some of those concepts and digging ever deeper in coming posts in New Cosmologist.