Universe of Light
Solving the Biggest Mysteries in Physics
by
Cody Livengood
Copyright © 2015 Cody Livengood
Distributed by Smashwords
ISBN: 978-0463530108
LCCN: 20229134
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22279.68000
Contents
(1) Intro
(2) Particle Creation and Wave-Particle Duality
(3) General Relativity and Gravity
(4) Cosmic Expansion, Cosmic Inflation, and Dark Energy
(5) The Intergalactic Medium
(6) Dark Matter
(7) Black Holes and Galactic Vortexes
(8) Entropy, Quantum Fluctuations, and Particle Annihilation
(9) Time
(10) Magnetic Fields
(11) Electric Charge
(12) Quarks, Protons, and Neutrons
(13) Atomic Structure and Photon Emission
(14) The Atomic Size Limit, Radioactivity, and Phase Change
(15) Magnets
(16) Electromagnetic Induction
(17) Static Discharge and Lightning
(18) Solar Corona and Celestial Heat
(19) Predictions
(1) Intro
The conventional narrative in physics goes something like this: 13.8-billion years ago, the universe began with the Big Bang. At first, all of the energy and spacetime (i.e., space and time together as a 4-dimensional continuum) in the universe was contained within an infinitely dense point (i.e., a singularity). Immediately, space inflated by a factor of at least 1026 (that’s 10 with 26 zeros behind it) in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (between 10−32 and 10−36 seconds). There are four fundamental forces: the strong force (which is carried by the gluon), the weak force (which is carried by the W and Z bosons), electromagnetism (which is carried by the photon), and gravity (which is mediated by the Higgs boson and hypothetical gravitons). On the smallest scales, things are made up of tiny, vibrating strings and governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, where matter is both a wave and a particle acting based on probability waves and observations, potentially branching into many separate universes. There are many different types of particles in existence (at least seventeen), and each of them are excitations within their corresponding fields which permeate the entire universe (e.g. electrons manifest in the electron field, photons manifest the photon field, etc.). Both matter and antimatter were created in equal quantities, but, after the matter and antimatter particles annihilated each other, for every billion matter-antimatter particle pairs, one matter particle remained, leaving us with all the matter we have now. The expansion of the universe slowed down drastically, but 7.7-billion years later, the expansion began accelerating again due to a mysterious dark energy. Furthermore, the universe is filled with clusters of invisible, massive particles, called dark matter, which only reacts with normal matter through its gravitational pull. In fact, normal matter makes up less than 5% of the universe – the remaining 95% is composed of roughly 27% dark matter and 68% dark energy. Particles in empty space are constantly popping in and out of existence. When a star collapses and its matter gathers together tightly enough, it creates a black hole singularity. Lastly, time is relative rather than absolute, and it is caused by the increase of entropy.
Now, what if you were told that everything you’ve just read in that conventional narrative is not true? Well, brace yourself, because chances are it’s not true – not one bit of it, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg for the fallacies in physics. Those are the ideas that are currently perpetuated, but, as you’ll soon see, reality is much different than what we’ve been told, and, indeed, much simpler and more cohesive. So, how do things really work? If any of the following statements don’t make sense to you, perhaps they will after you read the subsequent sections wherein the concepts are explained in detail. Also, the explanations benefit from being paired with visuals, but most of which haven’t been made yet. I’ll begin by giving you the answer, then, later, I’ll give you the evidence. Contrary to the conventional narrative, only one object or body exists. All things, including space itself, are the result of the motion and location of a single substance composed solely of electromagnetic waves (i.e., light – hence the name Universe of Light) forming a field within and separate from the immutable spatial dimensions in which that substance sits. Space (i.e., the field that objects are made of and travel through) being a physical material and separate from the spatial dimensions is a key fundamental difference from the conventional explanation, but one that leads to accurate explanations for observed phenomena and unsolved mysteries. Space varies in density within the spatial dimensions by containing various concentrations of that sole substance (or energy). Waves in this field travel toward (and through) the densest regions, spiraling to form vortexes seamlessly connected to the space around them. Those vortexes are the true forms of particles. Particles being made of electromagnetic waves explains why they exhibit properties of both waves and particles and the reason why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light – because everything is made of light. This light is the energy that is conserved and used in all physical operations and why mass is determined by the amount of energy in an object (E=mc2). Space gathers as objects belonging to the only existing material body are brought together. The waves, which particles are made of, travel toward the densest region in space – that being objects, which are made of space – resulting in gravity. Material space is separate from the spatial dimensions. Time truly has no speed and is the same everywhere (absolute), because light is the only thing that moves and it has only one speed. What we measure as time is simply a measure of the location of waves within the dimensions. The speed of light through the spatial dimensions decreases as the density of space increases. Any perceived differences in the passage of time are actually just differences in the motion and density of space relative to the spatial dimensions. Space itself stretches as waves move and gather, causing light waves traveling through space to become stretched as they travel. Space is stretching as the conventional theory claims, but the direction it is claimed to be stretching is wrong. It is neither outward as the universe expands nor inward as it collapses, but, instead, stretching toward the galaxies; and so, the universe is not expanding, nor has it ever expanded, but, rather, began evenly spread out. The Big Bang and the expanding universe, including cosmic inflation and dark energy, are primarily the result of mistakenly extrapolating from the incorrect assumption that redshift (the stretching of a light’s wavelength) indicates cosmological expansion or motion away from the observer. The alternative interpretation that stretching is only local solves essentially all of the problems regarding the evolution of the universe, including those created by the conventional theory. Also, space being different densities within the spatial dimensions accounts for the irregular motions of objects within galaxies, which originally lead to the invention of dark matter. Objects nearer to the outer edge of a galaxy are traveling through space that is less dense, leading to increased movement through the dimensions, accounting for the “missing mass.” Black holes, rather than being singularities separate from galaxies, are the center of active galactic vortexes. Lastly, there are no separate forces or physically separate objects, just light within the spatial dimensions, making this a “theory of everything.”
The "theory of everything" is the fundamental framework of physics which explains and links all physical phenomena, including particles, light, gravity, and possibly even time. Currently, finding such a theory is considered perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in physics. Universe of Light is an attempt at solving that problem, as well as many more of the biggest mysteries in physics, using explanations which differ from the conventional understanding but still appear to agree with experimentation. Though having some preexisting familiarity with the topics would help, the proposed hypotheses are described mostly in layman's terms and without mathematics so that it may be understood even by those lacking a background in physics.
Aside from Universe of Light being an explanation for physical processes, some additional reasons to believe in its validity include its simplicity (which almost can't get any simpler), it leaves very few (possibly zero) unexplained assumptions (reference Occam's Razor), the fact that it's easy to understand (at least when paired with visual imagery), it answers (or leads to the answer to) most of the major open questions in physics, it answers more questions than it creates, and it appears intuitively true. Its explanatory powers make it a superior alternative to conventional explanations. The last section of this book is a long list of predictions that would be true if Universe of Light is correct. These can be used to verify the validity of my claims.
It’s not unreasonable for people to be resistant toward an unorthodox view which runs contrary to what the scientific community has established over time. In fact, it’s expected, but if the truth about how the universe works is going to be sincerely pursued, certain discrepancies between the current model and reality must be addressed. Here, I make the claim that many of the most significant and widely-held beliefs in science, such as the existence of the Big Bang, cosmic inflation, antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and the four fundamental interactions (or forces), can all be ascribed to light. Conventional theory is motivated by whether or not calculations can be used to predict future observations, and considers the accuracy of the interpretation regarding what is physically happening behind the math to be somewhat irrelevant, although it is taught as being true. But I would argue that those misinterpretations are greatly hindering the progress of science, because, without knowledge of what is physically happening, it is far more difficult to know how to approach properly calculating events or to know for sure whether those calculations are actually grounded in reality. The Big Bang is an obvious example. We can calculate everything about how it might have unfolded or during which fraction of a second some event might have occurred, and no matter how good our calculations are, that doesn’t make it a factual part of the history of the universe. By simply reinterpreting the same evidence used to support those concepts, it appears that they are merely misinterpretations of evidence rather than real phenomena.
If only one physical substance exists as the most foundational building block possible, even deeper than the fundamental particles or any other structure, what must that substance be? Energy. But what is energy exactly, and how does it act to create such variation in its effects? The claim presented herein is that light waves and energy are the same material from which all forms and operations can be derived as a product of its motion and density. In this book, the terms energy, light, electricity, waves, medium, material, space, and electromagnetic field are used synonymously. This is very important to remember. Reading that, you may think that such terms cannot be used synonymously - that some of them refer to entirely separate phenomena - but, if this theory holds true, as you will soon see, they can all be described as different manifestations of the same substance: a single material body made up entirely of waves that never stop moving. There is no division between waves, and so there is no region within the universe which is empty of this material. The spatial dimensions, however, are separate from the material of space and serve only to define the relative position of that material which resides within the dimensions.
All particles being made of the same material brings into question the physical properties of this substance which intermediates them. The conventional theory is that each type of particle corresponds to its own unique “quantum field,” and every field permeates the entire universe. When energy enters a field, it produces the type of particle belonging to that field, which is referred to as an “excitation” of that field. As for the number of fields, depending on who you ask, it could be seventeen, twenty-four, thirty-six, or an infinite number. Regardless, the specifics on the process of particle creation is ill-defined. It is not well-explained how exactly energy is physically connected to the various fields, how energy is able to pass between fields, how the fields are able to occupy the same space, how energy can enter one field without entering the others despite them existing in the same space, or what exactly energy and the fields themselves are. There must be a better, or at least more carefully developed, theory than this. To understand what might really be going on, we must consider two simple postulates:
First, posit that there are only three spatial dimensions: the X, Y, and Z axes (forward and backward, left and right, and up and down) - the only three spatial dimensions we are innately familiar with. This 3-dimensional plane, sometimes referred to as "absolute space," will simply be referred to as "the dimensions." The dimensions are intangible and immutable (i.e., never-changing), since they are not a physical substance, but, rather, parameters which serve only one purpose: to define the relative position of things within them. It is the emptiness in which everything sits.
Second, to answer the age-old questions of what it is that light travels through and what physically changes under the influence of gravity, we must also posit that only one field exists: the electromagnetic (EM) field. The EM field is a physical substance made-up entirely of electromagnetic waves (light) which fill the dimensions completely so that no true vacuum exists (i.e., a plenum), meaning there is no region with nothing in it. And the EM field is the only physical thing that exists in the entire universe.
Though it is often easier to picture EM waves and the EM field they travel through as being separate, they are, in fact, the same body, much like the ocean and its waves are the same body. Because of this, as EM waves travel, this changes the density of the EM field. EM waves are drawn toward the densest region in the EM field. And when a wave travels into a region, it makes that region even denser by increasing the amount of energy in it, which, then, increases the amount that each successive wave will bend toward that region, and so on. Likewise, when a wave passes through and leaves a region, that region becomes less dense. Though, since the speed of light is so great, the bending of its path is typically only observable when dealing with great distances or densities. Erwin Schrodinger was right when he said “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.”
(2) Particle Creation and Wave-Particle Duality
The density of a region in the EM field increases as more energy enters into it, causing the path of waves passing through that region to become increasingly curved. That information could be extrapolated to say that it would not be unreasonable to think that, given sufficient energy, particles, rather than being separated from the space around them, are the end result of waves traveling toward the densest regions in space. Particles should not be viewed as distinct entities so much as densities of energy seamlessly connected to the field around them. Since they are seamless, they have no defined boundaries, and so no distinct size. Objects are not separated from one another. Everything in the universe is physically part of the same body. Considering the great amount of energy in particles and the amount of curvature that it would equate to in the EM field, at some point, the waves should inevitably spiral to form small, dense vortexes in the EM field. A vortex with no division between it and the space around it is the true form of a particle.
There is always the same amount of energy in the universe, and it cannot be created or destroyed. Since the EM field is that fixed amount of energy, the medium that waves travel through is limited; so, waves cannot spiral inward forever. They only travel inward to the extent determined by the density of the EM field in that location. No space is infinitely dense, since that would require an infinite amount of energy. The waves simply pass through or nearby the densest point and continue on (this will be explained in greater detail in another section). The extent to which the path of a wave is bent toward the vortex can be calculated by knowing the amount of energy that is contained within a particle (or object) and comparing that to its equivalent quantity of space and vice versa. To quote Isaac Newton, “Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition? (…) The changing of bodies into light, and light into bodies, is very conformable to nature…”
For over a century, there has been a debate about whether light is a wave, a particle, or both, since it exhibits behaviors characteristic of both waves and particles. Furthermore, electrons and all other matter are able to exhibit wave-like behavior. Individual particles, like photons (particles of light) and electrons, are able to exhibit fluid-like behaviors typically associated with groups of particles. The conventional understanding is that matter is both a wave and a particle (i.e., a "wave-particle duality") - or rather that matter is a wave until observed, and then it collapses into a particle. However, it appears that, more accurately, particles are made of waves. The effects of this are particularly notable in the double-slit experiment, in which a single particle can be affected by its own wave and so interfere with its own motion as it is passing through one of two slits. The wave that passed through one slit extended from the particle that passed through the other slit. The motion of particles, specifically their diffraction and interference pattern, is clearly directed by waves, which are primarily those passing through the particle itself. The less dense (or massive) the particle, the more wave-like it will behave, because it is more easily manipulated by movement in the medium, including waves passing through itself. Einstein was not comfortable with probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, stating “I reject the basic idea of contemporary statistical quantum theory, insofar as I do not believe that this fundamental concept will provide a useful basis for the whole of physics.” Contrary to what the conventional theory states, the interference in the double-slit experiment is produced by real, physical EM waves, and is not produced by other possible positions of the particle instantaneously interfering with itself. If you could record video footage of the particle and the waves it produces without disturbing the experiment as the particle passes from one place to another, you would see that there is nothing mysterious happening. It would make it from point A to point B without disappearing from existence or collapsing into a different form. When the double-slit experiment is performed and an attempt is made to detect which of the slits individual particles are shot through, to say that it was simply observed like pointing a camera at one of the slits, as it is often portrayed, is misleading. The detector, is in fact, placed so that it blocks one of the slits, preventing a particle’s paired wave from propagating through the other slit. Special care should be taken not to physically obstruct the path of the particle or the waves extending from it when performing experiments like this.
(3) General Relativity and Gravity
Einstein's theory of General Relativity explains how gravity results from the warping of the "fabric of spacetime," which gathers space more densely into a region as the mass in that region increases, meaning that matter is drawn to greater densities of matter. General Relativity is often depicted as a grid of curved lines like a fabric with weighted spheres on it, where indentations in the fabric caused by the spheres bend the path of other spheres that roll across that fabric. The heavier the sphere, the more it bends the fabric. But, in reality, exactly what changes occur at the subatomic scale to cause this effect is not well understood under the conventional theory. Gravity is considered a bit of a mystery. However, the cause of gravity seems to be explained if particles and space are both the aforementioned material (the EM field). Matter bends space because matter is bent space. Energy gathers to create particles. They are knots in the fabric of space, so to speak. The reason mass and energy are equivalent (E = mc2) is because an object's mass (the amount that it bends the fabric) is determined by the amount of energy in it; so, in a way, mass and energy are more than simply equivalent, since they are actually measurements of the same substance: light. Light is not massless. It is mass. The reason two rays of light do not noticeably interact with each other is not because light is massless, but because there is not enough energy (or space) in individual waves to bend each other's path.
Even waves that pass through particles and form them are affected by the density of space. This results in the vortexes (and, in turn, the objects they make up) having an overall tendency to travel toward the densest region in space. As waves travel through particles, the particles travel toward the region of greatest density, since the waves of which they are composed have an overall tendency to bend in that direction relative to the dimensions. That is the cause of gravity. The difference in the density of space surrounding the vortexes is very small, which is why gravity's effect is so weak. Space may be ever-so-slightly denser in one particular direction, resulting in gradual movement in that direction. But the difference in the density of space and, in turn, the effect of gravity, increases gradually (according to the inverse square law) as the region of greatest density is approached.
When an object loses energy, it also loses a corresponding amount of mass. There isn’t enough mass (or space) in individual (low-energy) photons to redirect the path of other particles to any significant degree, because energy and space are the same material; so, to gather more space, you must gather more energy. Without a significant amount of energy in any region, space is essentially flat, and so the path of light isn’t bent. In Universe of Light, gravitational mass is defined by the amount of energy (i.e., space) in a region. If a greater density of light is the same as a greater density of space, and a region containing more space is what results in gravitation toward that region and also results in such a region (or object) requiring more energy to be moved since it contains greater mass, then that should provide a sufficient explanation for why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent: it is simply a measure of the amount of energy or space in a region. If two photons were traveling perpendicular to one another, the amount that their paths would merge or cross would be determined by the amount of energy in those photons. A photon’s mass is extremely small, but not zero. If photons couldn’t interact with one another, then particles wouldn’t be produced by high-energy photon-photon collisions. There are additional reasons a photon must have mass contrary to the conventional belief, but that will be explained in more detail later.
The reason gravity has an infinitely distant area of effect - meaning that each particle affects every other particle regardless of distance - is because all particles, being made of the EM field, warp the medium between them. Not only that, but the "speed of gravity" is the same as the speed of light, meaning that changes in the "gravitational field" propagate at the same speed as changes in the EM field, since light is the only physical substance that exists. Like gravity, electromagnetism also has an infinite reach. In fact, Einstein's Unified Field Theory is simply his attempt to pair gravitation with electromagnetism, stating that they are different manifestations of a single, fundamental field. He showed that his theory works mathematically, but it has not yet been generally accepted because scientists do not understand how gravitation and electromagnetism work together off paper. Hopefully, Universe of Light can finish what Einstein started by providing an explanation of the physical processes behind their unity and behind the mathematics.
To say that space is capable of waving, rippling, and warping suggests that space is a physical substance capable of moving. In a phenomenon called "gravitational lensing," the path of light is visibly bent by great densities of mass, causing light passing nearby that mass to refract similar to how light refracts through a drop of water. This causes distant objects to appear distorted as their light passes by another mass. Planets, stars, and galaxies are massive collections of particles, and so they are great densities of space. That is why they are able to physically bend space and, in turn, the path of light passing nearby them. Light bending as it passes through different densities of space works in a manner similar to lenses in cameras and telescopes, which explains the similarity in their effects.
A phenomenon called "gravitational waves" is likely incorrectly named, since it likely has nothing to do with light traveling toward the densest nearby region, which is how gravity works, and more to do with fluctuations in the density of space caused by a rapid change in density.
According to the conventional theory, the Higgs boson is an excitation of a field (the Higgs field) which imparts mass to particles via interaction with the Higgs field. According to the Standard Model, 1% of mass is given via the Higgs field and the other 99% is acquired via the strong force (more on that later). The “Higgs boson” interacts with particles to an extent determined by their mass. The existence of the Higgs boson is said to be confirmed, but whether or not a particle was ever detected, regardless of certainty in its existence, does not prove that such a particle functions to give mass to other particles, and stating so appears to be without proof. The Higgs boson interacting with particles that have mass doesn’t prove that the Higgs field actually gives mass to those particles.
(4) Cosmic Expansion, Cosmic Inflation, and Dark Energy
Visible light is only a small portion of the spectrum of light. There are wavelengths of light too large or too small to see with our eyes, which we can only see with machines. There are also wavelengths beyond what we can see with machines.
Nearly all astronomical objects are so large and distant from us that visible change in their position (proper motion) is barely detectable. So, to measure the velocity of objects outside of the Milky Way, motion is inferred indirectly from a shift in the wavelength of its light. A light's wavelength is determined by the frequency of its wave (or its energy density). When light is stretched or emitted as the object moves away from the observer, the light wave's density decreases, and so the distance between waves lengthens, which is referred to as redshift, because red is at the less energetic end of the spectrum of visible light. Likewise, when light is compacted or emitted as the object approaches the observer, its wavelength is shortened, which is referred to as blueshift, because blue is at the more energetic end of the spectrum of visible light.
Most of the objects we observe in space are redshifted, which is interpreted in the conventional theory as indicating that nearly all objects are moving away from one another, which, in turn, would indicate that the universe is continually expanding (or stretching) in all directions (cosmic expansion). Cosmic expansion is the primary evidence for the Big Bang, since, if everything is continually moving away from everything else, then, if you rewind the clock, everything gets closer together until, sometime in the distant past, it was all gathered into a singularity at the beginning of time (i.e., the Big Bang). Also, the more distant the object, the more redshifted its light, which was interpreted as indicating that the rate of cosmic expansion has been increasing in the latter half of the life of the universe and is still accelerating, which many scientists claim is caused by a mysterious dark energy which exerts a negative, repulsive pressure propelling the expansion.
To explain why the universe appears the same in all directions (isotropic) and why the cosmic microwave background radiation (the oldest light we receive) is distributed evenly, indicating that space was once distributed evenly, another conventional theory, called cosmic inflation, was invented, since an evenly distributed universe does not fit well with the Big Bang model. Cosmic inflation states that space expanded extremely quickly and greatly for just a fraction of a second immediately following the Big Bang, after which the universe expanded much more slowly. However, the mechanism of cosmic inflation is entirely unexplained. Also, if the distribution of galaxies were determined by quantum fluctuations, you’d expect them to be distributed more randomly than they are.
After cosmic expansion, other evidence for the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background (which shows that energy in the universe used to be almost completely evenly distributed - isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000), the relative abundance of light elements (roughly 75% hydrogen-1, 25% helium-4, 0.01% of deuterium and helium-3, etc.) and the formation and evolution of galaxies over time - none of which require cosmic expansion, but, rather, only reinforce the idea that the universe had a beginning. Additional evidence used to support cosmic expansion includes the Cosmological Principle (the fact that the universe is isotropic and has roughly the same distribution of elements across the universe (homogeneous)) and the Copernican Principle (the fact that the same sort of observations could be made regardless of the observer's position) and that the Big Bang has no position from which the expansion began. However, both the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle could apply equally to a universe that began in an expanded state, and so they also cannot be counted as evidence in favor of expansion. You may be surprised to learn, then, that redshift is the only piece of evidence that could be interpreted as indicating cosmic expansion, and without redshift, scientists never would have concluded that the universe is expanding and, in turn, that it began with the Big Bang. So, if redshift could be explained as being caused by something other than an object's motion away from the observer or the expansion of the universe, and that explanation matched the experimental data, the theory of cosmic expansion would collapse and we could finally say “bye bye, Big Bang.”
The Big Bang and inflation don’t seem to provide any additional function after they took place; so, if we removed them from our historical narrative, it seems that everything could still work the same. They don’t appear to be needed to account for the large-scale structure of the universe, nucleosynthesis, baryon acoustic oscillations, and the anisotropies of the CMB or any other evidences, since those effects took place within an already-expanded universe and after the Big Bang and inflation allegedly took place. We would still have the same age of stars, metallicity, distribution of galaxies, and everything else, since they are not directly dependent on the existence of the Big Bang or inflation. Without universal expansion, they just don’t seem needed.
Now, it is possible to cause redshift by stretching a light wave in any direction, and so it does not necessarily imply movement or stretching away from the observer. It merely requires that the energy in the wave become less dense. It seems more probable to suggest that light is not being stretched outward by cosmic expansion, nor is it being stretched inward to some central point, but, rather, it is being stretched locally toward the individual galaxies as space gathers to create particles and as those particles gather, such as in galaxy formation and the creation of stars. The natural motion of waves, which space is made of, traveling toward the galaxies stretches the space they travel through, since both are made of the same body. In a way, gravity is doing the stretching. Perhaps also space is stretched by being pulled through black holes (more on that later). If this alternative cause of redshift is true, that would negate dark energy, cosmic expansion, and, by extension, the Big Bang. Also, if the universe began in an expanded state, rather than the opposite, that provides an alternative superior to cosmic inflation, since it fits the data without the need to invent additional theories. This should serve to solve any discrepancies in measurements of redshift.
Not only is the light from distant objects stretched consistently relative to the amount of distance it has traveled, but the rate of its stretching is increasing over time, which causes it to appear as if the rate of expansion is accelerating. However, there is likely no mysterious substance (dark energy) propelling the expansion of the universe. Instead, the rate of light's stretching may increase according to the density of the medium light is traveling through. In this case, thinner space is stretched more quickly, and the thinner the space, the more quickly light is stretched when traveling through it. It is analogously like stretching putty with ink on it. Space would be the putty and light would be the ink. As the putty is stretched, the ink on it also stretches. If there is less putty to stretch over a given distance, the ink would be stretched even more so to cover that same distance.
It is said that Einstein’s equations for General Relativity state that space should not be static – that it should either be expanding or contracting – and it was incorrectly concluded that space was expanding. In reality, space is contracting, albeit locally rather altogether, and always in motion. This solution seems to satisfy Einstein’s equations without leading to unexplained consequences, unlike the conventional theory.
Lastly, the conservation of energy is said to be broken by the expansion of space, but if the universe isn’t expanding and is treated as a single, closed system, then energy should still be conserved.
(5) The Intergalactic Medium
Space is denser where there is more energy and less dense where there is less energy, much in the same way that mass and bending of spacetime is depicted in illustrations of General Relativity. The varying densities of the medium doesn't only cause the wave's path to be bent left, right, up, and down, but contracts or expands forwards and backwards as well, making the path longer or shorter, resulting in acceleration or deceleration relative to the dimensions. The speed of light relative to space never changes, always travelling at the speed of light, but relative to the dimensions, the speed of light must change as it passes through various densities of space. In order for the speed of light to remain constant relative to space, waves must travel faster (relative to the dimensions) through less dense regions and slower through denser regions. It always takes light one year to travel through one light-year of space, but that light-year of space can be stretched or compacted into various densities within the dimensions, altering how light travels through it.
The universe began evenly spread out. Let’s call that state zero density. In order to have a density of space greater than zero somewhere, you must have a density of space below zero somewhere else. A region cannot gain without taking. However, although temperature and mass are both a measure of energy in a given region, a sub-zero density of space is not the same as sub-zero temperature (if measured in kelvin). As the density of space nears zero, so does temperature. Reaching absolute zero kelvin would require the complete absence of heat, which is energy, and since space is made of that energy, it would then require the absence of space, which is impossible.
Since light moves slower through regions where space is denser, light must move slower through regions of stronger gravity. Also, if a wave’s frequency and mass are both a measure of its energy density, then those two things should be equivalent (i.e., m = f).
Since objects are made of space, it is highly likely that space is densest within galaxies where most of the matter is, meaning not only is the greater majority of matter within galaxies, but galaxies contain the greater majority of space as well. They sit like bubbles of dense space within very thin space. At least, by volume, matter between galaxies is very sparse. This means that intergalactic space, being so devoid of massive objects such as stars and planets, is likely stretched very thin, and so light should pass between galaxies with a speed far exceeding the speed of light relative to the dimensions. Mainstream convention assumes that the distance light travels is equal to its distance in the dimensions, but if light travels through the EM field (true distance), which is stretched thinner between galaxies, then light is arriving quicker and brighter than what is believed, since its path is actually shorter than previously calculated. Interpreting the light using mainstream conventions leads to believing that the light is older (since it would have traveled further and for longer) and brighter (and, in turn, more energetic) than it really is. By not considering the density of the space that light travels through, this has led to many anomalies and inaccurate measurements of distance and luminosity, and, along with the theory of cosmic expansion, has contributed to what is quite certainly a drastically inaccurate estimate of the age of the universe.
Everything being made of light serves to explain why nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Light travels through the light field (EM field). To enable the propagation of light waves, and for there to exist standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), and for a body to know its relative position, some substance must fill all of space, and, through process of elimination, it seems that substance cannot be something other than light. As for how this might relate to the taboo substance called “luminiferous aether,” the EM field cannot be considered a substance separate from space or light. If light were to travel through a medium which is itself light, and that medium was not stationary, but, instead, in motion with objects in space, such a medium should be detectable using a phenomenon called stellar aberration. Stellar aberration is where the apparent position of distant objects (particularly stars) is slightly shifted based on the motion of the observer. But to suggest that motion in the medium could shift space enough to nullify stellar aberration may be overestimating the viscosity of the medium. Space does not move as a single, solid body so much as its solidity is equal to the amount of gravitational force felt in that region, which is proportional to the density of the space in that region. Where gravitation is minimal, motion in the medium should also be minimal, and where gravitation is greater, motion is greater. The movement of massive objects should affect the movement of the space around it, causing any effects to be quite immeasurable on smaller scales or on the surface of that body, but producing a drag effect detectable at larger distances, causing light to slow in stronger gravity or be affected by the rotation of a body. Light passing by a rotating planet or star or through a rotating galaxy should have its path slightly altered, but there is no such motion where there are no objects.
Lastly, the universe is filled with magnetic fields which have a profound effect on its dynamics. The origin of cosmological magnetic fields is a mystery to conventional science, but everything being made of light should serve as a sufficient explanation for their origin.
(6) Dark Matter
Objects toward the edges of galaxies appear to move too fast. The conventional theory is that additional mass is required to explain how those objects are able to remain in orbit at such speeds. This observation, along with gravitational lensing where the amount of visible matter is supposedly insufficient to produce the amount of warping observed, led to the invention of a hypothetical "dark matter." However, it has been nearly a century since dark matter was first theorized, yet dark matter particles have never been detected, nor has any other explanation provided by conventional theory ever been verified. Alternatively, additional mass would not be needed if space within a galaxy is denser nearer to the center than it is at its edge. When the orbital speeds of stars were measured, only distances in the dimensions were taken into account, assuming that all space is flat, but the density of the space they travel through was never considered. When distance in material space is taken into account, it can be seen that objects only appear to be moving too fast toward the edge of a galaxy, when, really, they are just moving through space that is less dense. The medium they travel through is spread over a greater distance in the dimensions, because the concentration of mass is denser toward the center of the galaxy, since the average concentration of stars and planets is denser at the center. In that sense, space is variable, not flat. As previously stated, light travels faster when the medium it travels through is less dense. Since all objects are made of light, it would make sense for them to also move faster through regions of space that are less dense without the need for additional mass or dark matter to explain their motions. In that case, the location of the hypothetical dark matter should correlate very strongly with the location of matter.
Though gravitational lensing is nearly always paired with visible matter, it is hypothetically possible to still observe gravitational lensing in regions that are either very large, very dense, or in motion. However, the denser a region is, the more likely it is to condense into visible matter, and so this observation should be rare.
(7) Black Holes and Galactic Vortexes
If black holes exist, they cannot be infinitely dense, since, as noted when explaining why waves cannot spiral inward forever in particle vortexes, an infinitely-dense space would require an infinite amount of energy – a substance which is limited. For that same reason, there cannot be an infinite number of waves in any region. Contrary to the conventional belief, waves can’t continue toward the same location forever, since there isn’t an infinite amount of space in that region to draw them in. When waves gather, they spiral each other and continue on outward, not gather in infinite density. Although Einstein's work is interpreted to supposedly suggest the existence of black holes, Einstein stated many times that he did not believe in black holes and denied that they could form.
A black hole’s mass is proportional to the mass of its host galaxy. Stable black holes appear to only be found in the center of a large density of space, such as a galaxy. Neither is it known how galactic vortexes could have formed. In fact, there may be no evidence for black holes where their existence cannot be alternatively attributed to the density and rotation of space. That is because black holes aren’t just found at the center of galactic vortexes – they are physically the center. Like water circling a drain, the rotation of a galaxy is like an enormous drain. If a galaxy’s rotation is uniform, such as in an active spiral galaxy, it should contain a galactic vortex. Though, if a galaxy’s rotation is not uniform, such as in an irregular galaxy, it may form multiple galactic vortexes within it, forming at its centers of mass. As with the space in particle vortexes, the density of space in galactic vortexes increases toward the center. A black hole is the center of a galactic vortex and the result of having objects (which are made of space) gathered around it rather than something that could exist in a stable form without the objects surrounding it. The more massive a galaxy and the more it is able to rotate in unison, the more likely it is to form a galactic vortex. A galactic vortex should potentially have a drain-like center due to the diameter of rotation in space shrinking toward its center, and that center is the true form of a black hole.
From the centers of active galaxies, perpendicular to the galactic plane, massive jets of plasma are produced. It seems more viable to attribute the cause of that phenomenon, as well as the peculiar proper motion of stars, which act as if they are circling a drain, to the center of the galactic vortex rather than black holes, since they are phenomena one might expect from a vortex. Furthermore, the spiral formation of galaxies may be formed in a manner similar to waves or wrinkles in many other materials, which may help to explain the formation of a galaxy's arms. Black holes supposedly contain an amount of matter so great and dense that not even light can escape its gravity. Something like that should not be producing jets of plasma. Since all objects are made of light, they should have an inherent magnetic field. Also, a black hole should appear more active when a galaxy’s magnetic field lines, which simply indicate its direction of motion, flow in unison, creating a greater drain or spiral motion (rotation); otherwise, black hole activity and galaxy rotation shouldn’t be so correlated.
Even in dormant galaxies, light would still generally gather toward the center of mass, increasing the galaxy’s density over time, perhaps along with its corresponding black hole.
Lastly, the galactic vortex can produce two cone shapes that meet at the center of the galaxy, which, together, when viewed from the side, look like an X. This effect is visible in the Milky Way. That X-shape likely has some connection with a phenomenon, which can be found in the gamma/X-ray spectrum, referred to as "Fermi bubbles." That is, two extremely large, spherical shapes connected at the center of our galaxy perpendicular to the galactic plane, which, together, when viewed from the side, look like a giant numeral 8. These effects are likely tied to the magnetic fields of galaxies, especially considering that magnetic fields appear to play a significant role in shaping structures at all scales. Regardless, this all appears to reinforce the idea that space within and around a galaxy is a single, connected, physical material.
(8) Entropy, Quantum Fluctuations, and Particle Annihilation
At first, space was evenly distributed throughout the universe, but slight variations in its density led the waves to create regions of greater density and, eventually, vortexes. Waves traveling toward the densest region in space is the mechanism that counteracts entropy. Contrary to what the conventional theory states, the universe began in a very high-entropy state, since it was evenly distributed, not a very low-entropy state (as in the Big Bang), and entropy has been decreasing over time, rather than increasing, by gathering energy on various scales.
Space that is often referred to as a vacuum is simply its least dense state, but even space that appears empty varies in density. Wavelengths of light outside of the spectrum of visible light can be disguised as emptiness to our eyes, because we cannot see it, when, in fact, the universe is solid with energy. A true vacuum does not exist. The vacuum of space is filled with various (usually low) wavelengths of light everywhere and at all times, since space itself is made up of that light. The Earth and moon appear physically disconnected if we view them using only visible light. However, if we could view all wavelengths of light, we would be able to see that there is no physical separation between the Earth and the moon or anything else. Light waves that leave the vortexes that make up Earth travel seamlessly through the light-filled space between the Earth and moon and enter the vortexes that make up the moon. The light field is not only solid between them but they are made of it. Though there is little light (or energy) outside of particles compared to within them, waves passing between objects can interfere with each other causing sporadic variations in density. The amount of energy is rarely sufficient to bend the path of waves enough to retain a vortex motion, since most of the energy has already been distributed among existing particles; so, new particles dissipate almost immediately as densities of energy fluctuate. However, under close observation, these variations cause it to appear as if particles are constantly popping in and out of existence, which, conventionally, is referred to as "quantum fluctuations," but, actually, they are simply variations in density. Mainstream theory considers the energy in quantum fluctuations to be borrowed when a particle pops into existence then returned when it disappears; though, not only is the source from which it borrows the energy unexplained, but that would momentarily violate the conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed - ever - and that does not allow for momentary exceptions. The energy those particles are formed of already exists in space. The waves just gather densely enough to register as particles, but not densely enough to create stable vortexes.
It is hypothetically possible that such fluctuations are also the cause of mysterious high-energy cosmic rays that have been detected. Perhaps, rather than being received from a distant source, those particles were, instead, created in the vicinity of the detector when waves of moderate density overlap to form a higher density.
Conventional theory states that the universe was hot for a hundred-million years following the Big Bang, but considering that energy can transfer between atoms at the speed of light, since it is light, it is likely that particles were created in a relatively short amount of time - perhaps within hours, if not minutes or even seconds, of the beginning of the universe. Naturally occurring vortexes and heat are all that is needed to create atoms and fuse elements. Elements can be fused quickly with sufficient enough heat, and heat is a natural property of space, since, as I will explain later, heat is a measure of the amount of energy in the vortexes. Space, heat, and energy are all the same substance, so it should not necessarily take years for the universe to cool or to create and fuse atoms.
When particles annihilate each other during a collision, the energy they were made of does not disappear. It is simply deconstructed. Some of the energy may escape into the surrounding environment, and the rest recombines into other particles of an equivalent amount of energy. If an electron and positron (which is like an electron but with an electric charge that is positive rather than negative) annihilate each other, they can create two electrons or two positrons in the process. In that case, energy may be conserved, but charge is not, because one positive charge and one negative charge should not otherwise be able to create two positive charges or two negative charges. That is why a charge-carrying particle is thought to be created and escape in the process, though that particle is never detected in such experiments. Also, you can change the mass of an electron by simply shooting light at it, and collisions involving only light, specifically high-energy photons, could potentially produce other particles, like an electron, neutrino, or quark if it contains an equivalent amount of energy. When using particle colliders, scientists are rarely able to dictate exactly which particles are produced in the collision. They produce various combinations of particles depending on the amount of energy put into the system and the speed and trajectory of the impact. Nevertheless, the fact that fundamental particles can turn into one another suggests that all particles are made of the same basic material.
When vortexes are destroyed by extreme heat or collision and melded with each other and the surrounding space as a region of formless energy, the information regarding what type of particle the waves were a part of and what element or object they were a part of is essentially destroyed. Information does not need to be conserved.
According to conventional theory, there are heavier versions of many particles, between which they can oscillate simply by gaining or losing energy. The smaller the particle is, the less energy it needs to gain or lose in order to be considered a different type of particle. This further suggests that particles are made of the same material and exist in the same field. Because light is always moving through the vortexes, everything is constantly absorbing and emitting light. Particles are able to absorb and emit light because they are made of light, and so light passes through them. The vortexes must constantly take in light in order to emit it; otherwise, they would dissipate until formless. Absorbing and emitting various amount of energy is the mechanism responsible for "neutrino oscillation," in which neutrinos change "flavors" (i.e., size or mass). Conventional theory claims that heavier versions of particles exist. However, everything in the universe is made up of the lighter versions (“first generation” particles); so, those particles appear to serve no purpose.
(9) Time
What is time? Without motion, it is not possible to tell if time is passing or how fast or in which direction it is moving. Without motion, time is not only immeasurable, but it could not be said that time exists, nor would it be possible to know if it did. Since everything is made of light waves, light is the only thing that moves. Time appears to serve no other function than to separate universal time-frames in the sequence of events, which is defined by the position of light waves within the dimensions. That means that the speed and direction of time is determined by the speed and direction of the light waves, which move at a constant speed forward. Since there is essentially no limit to how small or how large a wavelength of light can be, if everything is made of light, then there is no smallest amount of space or time, and all such values and objects should be infinitely divisible rather than "quantized." Time must also be a dimension if the purpose of a dimension is to simply compare changes in states.
An "absolute” reference frame is a frame of reference that every observer in the universe would agree on - being always at rest (stationary) or in constant motion - so that the passage of time or the position of things may be defined relative to it. In the theory of Special Relativity, there is said to be no absolute reference frame, and so time is only relative to the observer. In that case, the observer would be the reference frame, defining the position of things relative to their self. However, in reality, it is the dimensions that serve as the absolute reference frame. Although the dimensions have no physical body capable of being tracked per se, they still serve to define the universal now by tracking the relative position of energy within themselves. That is their purpose.
Speed is defined as the rate of change in position over time. Speed is measured by tracking the location of objects relative to each other within the dimensions. Without something to measure speed relative to, speed cannot be determined, and so a change in speed also cannot be determined. If an object were alone in space, how could acceleration or deceleration be felt without some absolute reference frame? Alone or not, the dimensions must exist in order to experience acceleration or deceleration. When space is warped, the path of any object traveling through that space is also warped. Because space varies in density, causing measured differences in speed, it appears as if time is warped, but time as a dimension, like the spatial dimensions, is intangible and cannot be affected. Time does not need to change to compensate for these measured differences if space changes instead. When time is perceived as passing at different rates (which is called “time dilation” - a principle of Special Relativity), that is simply the result of physical differences in the density and motion of space, not time. These changes affect processes associated with the passage of time, specifically the things we use to measure time, such as the position of light and atoms, which are made of light, relative to the dimensions. "Now" should not be confused with our ability to measure it. Time and space are absolute. All events occur and have occurred in a specific order. Based on the location and speed of an observer relative to a sequence of events, they may perceive events as occurring in an order or at a speed that does not match the order or speed measured by other observers which have a different speed and location. But this is not because the events did not occur in some absolute order. It is because light takes time to travel and the speed and location of the observer relative to the events affects when the observer receives the light from those events. The order in which light is received from occurring events should not be mistaken for the order in which they actually occurred. Every event must take place at some specific, absolute time and location. The measurement of relative time is purely physical, and so time is not relative, only position is. To further illustrate this, imagine that you could observe everywhere at once or pause time and observe anywhere in the universe at any time. As events occurred, you would know in which order they occurred and there would be only one order of events.
Given that the speed of time is determined by the speed of light, the speed of light and the speed of time must be the same. If all light moves at the same speed and all things are made of light, then all of time must pass the same. Without another object to define the passage of time relative to, that leaves only the relative position of light waves, which all move at the same speed. From this, one could argue that time has no true speed or direction, since one time is measured only relative to another object of the same speed. If one object slowed or sped up, the other would also, and for one to cease its movement, all must do the same. If all time must pass the same, then defining its speed is arbitrary. The events simply occur in a certain order, but the order never changes whether they are viewed quickly or slowly, forward or backward. So, time is not moving forward, nor is it moving backward. There is no arrow of time. Because we experience events in a specific order (e.g., we observe an event after it took place and think about it after observing it), this creates the illusion that time is flowing forward, when, actually, we are only experiencing a certain frame in the sequence, which has a set order. Time is analogously like a movie: the entire sequence has been laid out, and now is just which frame we are viewing. Light will be wherever the laws of the universe dictate that it will be at each frame in the sequence, and this cannot be changed. Thus, in reality, all of time occurred simultaneously (which is referred to as “block time”), since the order of events, defined by the position of light waves, cannot and will not change, because there is nothing that is not made of light waves, and the laws of the universe never change. Both space and time result from the same physical material: light.
(10) Magnetic Fields
When an electric current moves, a magnetic field is produced around that current. Also, electricity can be produced by moving a magnet relative to a conductor, such as a coil of copper wire – this is called induction. But how could a magnetic field be continually produced by a motionless object, such as a common dipole magnet, if electricity is not flowing in or through it? What exactly is a magnetic field physically made of and what does it do to the space around it? Light is considered an electromagnetic wave/particle, but it appears that magnetism is neither paired with electricity (electromagnetism) nor a separate force, but, rather, magnetism is electricity in motion. If there exists only one physical substance, this must, in some way, be the case. Since every particle is circulating light waves through it and those waves are electricity, every particle is producing a magnetic field. If every particle is producing a magnetic field, then every object they make up must also be producing a magnetic field, even if that field appears negligible. A magnetic field is the result of waves flowing in a unified direction. When more vortexes are aligned, that increases the amount of space that is being circulated in a unified direction, meaning a stronger magnetic field. As stated before, the motion of one wave can affect the motion of another. The motion of the waves within the magnetic field influences the waves in other magnetic fields and vortexes. That is the force of magnetism. In that sense, the waves affect each other similar to waves in water. Space flowing through one magnetic field either flows with or against space flowing through another magnetic field. Also, magnetism having a physical cause explains where magnetic fields originated - meaning where they originally came from at the beginning of the universe - which currently has no explanation in mainstream physics.
Picture a particle vortex much like a dipole magnet is illustrated. A particle vortex has an intake and output pole, which are like the north and south poles of a magnet. An intake of waves must be paired with an output of waves and vice versa; otherwise, the vortex would constantly grow or dissipate. If waves flowed into a source without flowing out, that source would grow (or at least become denser), and if waves flowed out of a source without flowing into it, that would deplete its energy and eventually destroy the source. That is the reason a magnetic monopole cannot exist, meaning a positive pole cannot exist without a negative pole and vice versa. Specifics on the creation of magnets, rather than just magnetic fields, will be given later in section 15, Magnets.
(11) Electric Charge
Conventional theory posits that when a particle is created, an antimatter twin with the opposite charge must be created at the same time because, similar to how energy must be conserved, the ratio of positive-to-negative-charges must be conserved in equal quantities. Not only is there no explanation for why the universe contains more matter than “antimatter” (referred to as the “matter-antimatter asymmetry”), but there is no explanation for what physically creates the difference between positive and negative charges. Conventional theory only states that they are opposites, but not how they are opposites. Contrary to mainstream theory, an "antiparticle" is not created simultaneously, nor must charge be conserved, because charge is not a different type of electricity or any other mysterious substance. Instead, charge is determined by a vortex's direction of rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise), which, depending on the orientation of the vortex's poles relative to another “charge,” causes it to act like either a positive or negative charge. Charge is the result of the motion of waves more than a conserved and quantifiable substance. The strength of a particle's magnetic moment is inversely proportional to its mass - meaning smaller particles are affected more strongly by electric "charge." For some unknown reason (perhaps having to do with magnetic fields), all vortexes appear to rotate counterclockwise relative to their poles. It has not been proven experimentally that the counterclockwise rotation of the magnetic field around an electric current can also flow clockwise. Even a bolt of lightning deflects a compass needle in the same manner. It cannot be assumed that a vortex can flow in the opposite direction relative to its poles, nor can we assume that positive and negative charges are physically different from each other. A vortex's relative orientation, and so its charge, can be changed by simply turning the vortex upside-down. The smaller the vortex, the more easily it is flipped by motion in the medium, such as a magnetic field or other charge.
Because electricity always spirals counterclockwise relative to the direction of the current, all fundamental particles should be physically identical except for the amount of energy passing through them. In order for vortexes to sit side-by-side, they must rotate in opposite directions, like gears, but to link their poles, they must rotate in the same direction; otherwise, the flow of their waves would push against one another. To further reinforce this idea, in experiments using magnetic waveguides, photons can be made to travel in rings. Rings of light traveling in opposite directions cannot stack, but they can sit side-by-side. That is another example of vortexes acting like dipole magnets.
Regardless of whether this alternative theory or the conventional theory is true, that still leaves the question of what physically causes the magnetic field to spiral counterclockwise rather than clockwise. Though it is unlikely, another possibility is that vortexes can rotate both clockwise and counterclockwise and whether they are positively or negatively charged is determined by their direction of rotation.
Electrons are supposed to all be negatively charged. In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, electrons are shot through a magnetic field, wherein half of the electrons move toward the positive pole and half toward the negative pole. Despite being the same type of particle, they act like they have opposite electric charges. This result is responsible for the theory of quantum "spin," which does not refer to actual rotation, but is, instead, a mathematical construct used to explain their behavior, though, like charge, there is no real, physical explanation for its cause. It would, in fact, be more accurate if spin did refer to actual rotation.
Also, if two electric currents flow in opposite directions relative to a perpendicular magnetic field, the electrons in one stream will be attracted to the magnetic field and the electrons in the other stream will be repelled by the magnetic field. However, contrary to the conventional explanation, in that experiment as well as the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the orientation of the particle's poles relative to the poles of the magnetic field determines how the particle reacts. An electron on one side of an electron ring is oriented in the opposite direction as an electron on the opposite side of that ring, and since charge is based on its relative orientation, one would travel toward the positive charge in the magnetic field and one would travel toward the negative charge. The electron has little mass, and so it is easily manipulated by motion in the magnetic field. The electrons rotate toward whichever charge they are most closely oriented toward. The reason a "spin-down electron" is experimentally indistinguishable from a "spin-up positron" is because they are the same thing. A particle's charge, antimatter counterpart, and quantum spin are all the result of its orientation relative to another particle or the direction of an electric current, such as in a magnetic field.
When waves flow in opposite directions, this hinders their motion. Without this effect, it may not be possible for friction to occur.
(12) Quarks, Protons, and Neutrons
Unlike fundamental particles, composite particles, like protons and neutrons, are composed of smaller particles (quarks). According to the conventional theory, quarks are bound together by gluons (particles carrying the strong force). However, fractional charges (+2/3 or -1/3 charge, which quarks supposedly have) have never been observed alone. Fractional charges were merely invented to make the math workout, but without the math, there exists no other evidence for believing they exist. Contrary to the conventional belief, quarks are merely vortexes linked pole-to-pole in a ring, creating a single, larger vortex through the center of that ring. The quarks are locked into a certain distance because of their linking and their mutual rotation, with the link between them and the vortex they create together being a direct extension of their body. Those quark vortexes are the cause of "particle emitting cones" seen in certain experiments on quarks and gluons. These cones or jets are caused by the output poles of the quark vortexes. Quarks are too small to be observed directly with current technology. Their existence is merely inferred from the particle emitting cones and the quarks’ ability to deflect particles passing through the composite particle. So, the strong force is likely a product of the motion of waves, similar to dipole magnets linked in a ring, rather than an actual force, gluons do not exist, and fractional charges are simply a mathematical convenience with no real, physical counterpart.
Protons and neutrons are said to be composed of "up" and "down" quarks. The other quarks (top, bottom, charm, and strange) are not stable. In fact, they last for less than a quadrillionth of a second – hardly long enough to be considered existent. Likewise, over two-hundred other particles have allegedly been detected, but the up and down quarks, electrons, photons, and neutrinos are the only ones that last for more than one-quadrillionth of a second. Perhaps, particles shouldn’t be considered existent if they can’t remain stable for even a single second.
A neutron can split (or decay) into a proton and an electron during a process called “beta decay,” and a proton can become a neutron by "absorbing" an electron from its innermost electron ring (electron capture). Conversely, a neutron can turn into a proton by emitting a positron (positron emission). This is mostly speculation, but, given that information, it may not be unreasonable to conclude that neutrons are simply a proton-electron pair. The difference in energy between a proton and a neutron is roughly that of an electron, and a proton should not be able to turn into a neutron by emitting a positron, since doing so would indicate that the proton becomes a particle with more mass by losing a particle that also has mass. Also, neutrons are considered neutral, but they actually have a very weak negative charge (or "magnetic moment") - about half that of an electron.
Neutrons decay, but protons never appear to. This could also be because a neutron is a proton-electron pair. Since neutrons are unstable outside of atoms, it is possible that neutrons are created inside of atoms through electron capture when a significant enough quantity of energy flows through a proton (or the atom) that the proton may grab an electron. And since there is rarely, if ever, a greatly uneven ratio of protons to neutrons in a stable atom, the electron of a neutron may be positioned between two or more protons in the nucleus to keep them from repelling each other.
As you will learn in the next section, all particles in an atom help to increase the flow of energy through that atom and, in turn, increase the flow through the particles as well, especially those nearest to the center. So, when a particle leaves an atom, its size (or the energy it contains) returns to normal. The flow of energy through the nucleus causes an excess of energy to flow through the particles in the nucleus (nucleons). Once a neutron leaves the atom, the proton of that neutron is only able to remain paired with its electron until the excess of energy has passed through the proton - in which case it becomes too weak to hold on to its paired electron. How long the proton can hold on to its electron may vary depending on the location of the electron relative to the proton's poles, the strength of the magnetic field, and the temperature, which may alter the amount of energy flowing through the particles. Again, this is just speculation, but given that a neutron is a proton-electron pair, which is unstable, and a hydrogen-1 isotope is also a proton-electron pair, but it is stable, the difference between the two may be the position of their electron. The electron of a hydrogen-1 isotope may be held at the proton's pole outside of the ring of quarks, and the electron of a neutron may be held in the center of the ring of quarks but facing in the opposite direction as the vortex created by the quarks in order to (mostly) neutralize the proton's charge (or rotation).
If charge is based on a vortex's orientation, it should be possible to cause a proton to have a negative charge by turning it upside-down. But it should be kept in mind that neutrons have a negative magnetic moment comparable to a proton's positive magnetic moment (neutron: 1.9135 vs proton: 2.792); so, an upside-down proton should not be confused for a neutron.
If all matter does not exist within the same field, then how else could energy pass from one field to another, and how could force bosons mediate between particles?
(13) Atomic Structure and Photon Emission
Because all particles are made of waves and seamlessly connected to the space around them, atoms are not almost 100% empty space, as the conventional theory claims. In fact, atoms are just the opposite: 0% empty. Also contrary to the conventional theory, the electrons in an atom are not in seemingly random orbits (or clouds of probability). Like the proton, the atom is also a vortex composed of other vortexes. It is shaped like the 3-dimensional magnetic field of a dipole magnet. It appears that the atom's magnetic field circulates in a toroidal (or donut) shape with both the nucleus and the electrons, which build to form a spherical shape, inside of the hole or funnel of that shape. Contrary to conventional theory, nucleons aren’t held in the nucleus by a residual strong force – not to be confused with the strong force that allegedly binds quarks together, which is also referred to as the strong interaction – but, rather, they are held by the rotational forces of the atomic vortex, which is more akin to magnetism than a transference of virtual particles.
Unlike particle vortexes, the atomic vortex has layers (shells) which are composed of particles. Nucleons, as well as the electrons surrounding them, are linked in rings perpendicular to the poles of the atomic vortex. Each electron shell (except for the first shell) is composed of multiple rings of electrons. Each electron ring and shell has a specific capacity to become full. An electron ring is filled when there are enough electrons in the ring to have each electron link pole-to-pole with the electron in front of it, just like a ring of magnets, filling until it is easier for a new electron to begin a new ring than it is to fit into an existing ring. When charting ionization energies, the completion and starting of electron rings is what causes the jagged spikes as the shells are filling, not the conventional theory of "atomic orbitals," which is just another mathematical construct more so than a description of their physical placement.
Rings and shells build symmetrically relative to the poles of the atom, meaning the atom generally has the same number of electrons between its upper and lower halves (designated by its positive and negative poles). This symmetry may suggest that an electron ring forms around the atom's center, then gets pushed off-center as a new, usually identical, electron ring builds. The shells of electrons and nucleons creates a shielding (or screening) effect from other particles, meaning there is some collective measure of solidity to the shell as a whole. Regardless, that symmetry is one of the primary reasons I believe the atom might form a spherical shape inside of the magnetic field, but, although it is unlikely, it may also be possible that the atom forms in the shape of a funnel along the center of the toroidal shape, along with the possibility that electron rings form at the uppermost and lowermost ends of that funnel rather than at the axis dividing the positive and negative poles. Why is it less likely that atoms are non-spherical? Because experiments used to probe the shapes of nuclei have found their shapes to be spherical, rugby ball, discus, pear, and triaxial (oval discus). Magnetic fields and gravity appear to confine most matter into spherical shapes at the center of their field. For instance, planets, stars, and black holes.
The flow of the nucleon shells run opposite of the flow of the electron shells. The more distant an electron shell is from the center of the atom, the more energy it is required to circulate in order to counterbalance the rotation of the nucleus, since it must cover a larger area, which is why the number of electrons required to complete each successive shell generally increases as the atom grows. And because there must be a balance in rotation between the nucleus and electrons, the atom cannot maintain a greatly unbalanced ratio of nucleons-to-electrons.
A photon is emitted when an electron moves from one orbital distance to another, but this is not the result of some mysterious "quantum leap." Electrons have specific distances they orbit because they are repelled by the shells outside and within the shells they are a part of and because the electrons are bound in rings, which helps to hold them in orbit. When an electron absorbs light, its distance from the center of the atom increases. In order to remain in its orbit, the electron must re-emit the light it absorbs, which it releases in the form of a photon (or packet of energy). To get an electron to leave its orbit without first emitting a photon and falling back into place, the electron must absorb a photon with enough energy in it that it causes the electron to break its link with the electron ring it is a part of and penetrate any electron shell above it. That is the cause of the "photoelectric effect." So, a photon is not emitted by an electron passing from one shell to another, as the conventional theory states, but, rather, it is emitted to keep the electron from passing from one shell to another; otherwise, the structure of electron rings and shells wouldn’t be as stable as they are. In the photoelectric effect, many lower-energy photons can pass through an atom without exciting its electrons enough to cause them to leave the atom, but even a single high-energy photon can have enough energy in it to excite an electron enough that it is caused to leave the atom. That could be because vortexes grow when more light is inside them. Lower-energy photons are absorbed and emitted by electrons quickly and with little effect so that the electron is not caused to grow quickly and drastically enough relative to the rest of the atom that it is caused to detach. Any electron which absorbs enough energy to break free is a high-energy electron.
Photons are likely just densities of energy too small to divert the path of a quantity of energy significant enough to create a vortex. Photons do not appear to act like dipole magnets; so, they are likely not vortexes, though they are still capable of pushing "uncharged" matter. It appears that the reason all photons move at the same speed may be because a photon is only a wave, and not a vortex. Photons moving at the same speed while containing different densities of energy could be described analogously like having a row of cars which are all driving at the same speed. You could place the cars closer together or space them further apart changing their density without changing their speed. Waves only move forward, though their path bends according to the density of space. The reason vortexes are mostly stationary when the waves that compose them are not is because they are dense enough to divert the path of waves. Photons rarely contain enough energy to divert the path of other waves, and so they travel forward. Also, photons traveling at the speed of light is the reason why it’s believed that it’s possible to have energy and momentum without mass, but this analogy and other examples mentioned in Universe of Light are the reasons why that isn’t the case.
The nucleus also being composed of rings and shells helps to explain the various shapes of nuclei mentioned earlier. Its shape is likely determined by the size, quantity, and position of the nucleon rings relative to each other. At least for organic chemicals, it is possible to detect a magnetic field from the nucleus of atoms with an odd number of nucleons. This could be because having an odd number of nucleons causes an imbalance in rotation, which causes the vortex to have a charge, because charge is rotation. Particles outside of atoms are more easily influenced by their surroundings, since they have little to hold them in place. Neutral magnetic fields should weakly repel, while magnetic fields with rotation should attract unless the rotation of two fields (or vortexes) flows in opposite directions, in which case they should repel strongly.
An atom is made neutral not by having an equal amount of two different types of charge, but, since charge is created by rotation, the atom is made neutral by having the rotation of its nucleus flow equally opposite of the rotation of its electrons (counter-rotation), which cancels out the atom's rotation, neutralizing its charge. This, then, results in waves funneling straight through the atom without clockwise or counterclockwise rotation, much like how a magnetic field is illustrated. Just like particles, the atom's direction of rotation relative to other vortexes determines whether it acts like a positive or negative charge. As the atomic vortex grows, the strength of its rotation would increase if the entire atom rotated in the same direction, causing the atom to act like a very strong charge rather than being essentially neutral. Also, it is possible that without counter-rotation, the particles in the atom would be pulled much more strongly into the center of the atomic vortex, which would collapse the atomic structure. Not only that, but if atoms always acted like giant charges, atoms would not become more stable as their outermost shell filled, which would no longer fit the data. How the atom interacts with other atoms and particles is primarily determined by the strength of the rotation of its outermost shell, which is normally the only electron shell not filled, and so the outermost shell determines the strength of its charge.
It does not seem that particles within atoms actually move in their orbit. Particles having definite positions explains how molecular (covalent) bonds, in which atoms share electrons, are possible better than if those electrons moved around the nuclei of multiple atoms. Light flows through the electrons, but the electrons themselves have little movement unless acted upon.
An atom’s rotation, although very small, should be measurable. Particles such as protons should, because of their structure, have a rotation around their center, probably twisting inward, and a much greater force streaming outward from one pole, like a dipole magnet, or both poles, not unlike miniature black holes with their rotation and plasma jets.
Lastly, if particles act like dipole magnets, it is possible that the behavior of subatomic particles could be mimicked experimentally using magnets in a strong magnetic field in zero gravity.
(14) The Atomic Size Limit, Radioactivity, and Phase Change
Generally, the more particles in an atom, the greater the amount of energy that runs through the atom, resulting in both a greater intake and output of light. Heating an atom also increases the amount of light in it and, in turn, the amount of light it emits. The intake of light is absorbed by the particles, causing them to grow and their orbit to widen. Generally, in order to absorb heat, all electron rings in the atom must grow together; otherwise, that energy would simply be re-emitted and the atom would return to normal or, if it was absorbed unevenly or in excess, the atom would be destroyed.
When an element changes its state (Bose-Einstein condensate > solid > liquid > gas > plasma), this is called a "phase change." Energy can be added to an element without raising its temperature for a period as it is entering a more energetic state. During the phase change, energy must pass through particles in the atom evenly so that they can grow together; otherwise, as demonstrated with the photoelectric effect, particles or atoms would break free if they were to unevenly collect enough energy to break their link with the other particles or atoms.
To keep a particle from penetrating the shell above it, that particle is forced to emit energy as a photon rather than allowing it to slowly pass through the particle. Those photons are primarily emitted by electrons. However, when the intake of light through the atom is great enough to excite nucleons, they must also emit energy to keep from penetrating the shell above them in the nucleus; though, photons emitted by nucleons have far greater energy than those emitted by electrons because their size and capacity are greater. Photons emitted by nucleons have enough energy to damage any atom they impact. Nucleons typically only emit photons when part of the largest atoms, and it occurs more often as the atom grows.
There is a limit to how large an atom can grow, because, as the quantity of energy circulated through the atom gradually increases, the atom's intake of energy becomes great enough to make the atom increasingly unstable. Not only does the atom absorb more low-energy light, but it increases its likelihood of absorbing larger densities of light. This over-energizing of the atom increases the chances that the atom will decay by either having electrons leave the atom or by splitting the atom into multiple, smaller atoms. Also, as an atom's output increases, this can cause it to emit a jet of energy (or high-energy particles) like a miniature version of the plasma jet emitted from the "black hole" at the center of a galaxy.
(15) Magnets
Like other vortexes, such as particles and atoms, magnets link when their magnetic fields flow in the same direction - flow together, go together. Magnetic domains are groups of atoms oriented in the same direction so that their magnetic fields are flowing in a unified direction. Magnetic domains are most often extremely small and in high quantities. Vortexes orient themselves according to their strongest nearby influence, which, for atoms, is normally their neighboring atoms. Contrary to the conventional theory, magnetizing and demagnetizing elements by heating them past their Curie temperature has much less to do with molecular or kinetic motion than it does with distancing the center-points of the element's atomic vortexes from each other. It is possible to distance the center-point of one atom from the center-point of an adjacent atom because the particles in an atom exist in the center of its toroidal structure. Most of the toroidal structure of the atom is actually formed by its magnetic field, which extends beyond its outermost electron shell. That magnetic field is what creates the barrier between the atoms, and it grows as the particles in the atom grow (usually by heating them) without the size of the shells increasing much. Doing so weakens the bonds between atoms, freeing them to realign in a more unified or disordered structure. When creating a permanent magnet, a ferromagnetic element is heated and placed inside a strong magnetic field. The vortexes inside the magnetic element realign with the external magnetic field, and, as the element cools, most of the atoms retain their new orientation and lock in place linked with each other. This creates what is essentially a single magnetic domain or a larger scale version of the smaller vortexes, which are dipoles - that is, many smaller vortexes together form one larger vortex. That is also why, when you split a magnet in two, you make two smaller magnets rather than separating its positive pole from its negative pole.
There must be some direction of rotation to the atom in order for them to link and form a magnetic domain - meaning only atoms with partially filled electron rings can be ferromagnetic. Without rotation, each atom would not aid the rotation of the atoms beside it, only those in front and behind its poles. But, most importantly, if the atom had no rotation, it would also have no charge, and so it would not realign with the flow of the external magnetic field used to magnetize the element. Certain elemental bonds may also prevent the atoms from reorienting, because the way they are linked with each other may prevent its atoms from facing in the same direction.
Magnetic fields made from multiple atoms do not appear to spiral like the particle vortexes do, but, instead, acts more like a neutral atomic vortex, where waves pass through without rotation. However, unlike atomic vortexes, this is not because of a balance in rotation. It is because the magnet is made up of rows of atoms. Though, the atoms in the magnet can, and usually do, have rotation themselves, because their outermost shell is not full. When two vortexes flow in conflicting directions so that their rotation creates resistance between them, one will reorient, if possible, and rotate together like gears to minimize this pressure; otherwise, they will repel each other. A magnetic domain will often split into two domains flowing in opposite directions or align into counter-directional rows (one up, one down, one up, and so on), as in ferrimagnetic materials. In that case, the orientation of the nearby rows causes the rows between them to reorient in the opposite direction. Each row aids the flow of the rows beside it, again like gears, or else their flow will clash. The more unified their direction of flow, the stronger the resulting magnetic field.
(16) Electromagnetic Induction
A magnetic field is produced as an electric current passes through a conductor, such as a coil of copper wire, and an electric current can be produced by passing a magnetic field through a conductor. When an electric current moves, it moves the same electricity that space, matter, and magnetic fields are composed of. So, when a magnetic field is moved through a conductor, it moves the same electricity that the vortexes in the conductor are composed of. The induced current flows in the direction that the magnetic field is moved. The motion of the magnet, and so its magnetic field, is aiding the natural motion of electricity through the vortexes in the conductor. This produces an increase in electric current by increasing the amount of energy that moves through the vortexes in the conductor. If a stronger magnet is used, more magnetic field (or current) flows through the vortexes. If the coil of wire is wrapped more times, increasing the amount of the conductive element that the magnetic field moves through, there are more vortexes for the magnetic field to move through, which also results in an increased electric current. If the magnet is moved faster, the production of electricity will increase as movement of the magnet increases, because electricity is being made to pass through its vortexes faster. Likewise, it should follow that moving a magnetic field in the opposite direction of an electric current should impede its flow.
Electricity is not being created so much as it is being artificially passed through the vortexes in the conductor. An excess of electricity is not produced by a standing magnet for the same reason a vortex in equilibrium does not naturally produce excess electricity. The vortex simply redirects the natural path of electricity through it. Its intake and output are balanced, and so it is in a sort of equilibrium with the space around it. Electricity cannot be harvested from a vortex any more than it could be harvested from the vacuum of space. There is no excess of electricity being caused to move through it. Moving a magnetic field through a vortex either adds to or impedes the waves that naturally pass through it. The excess electricity produced in electromagnetic induction is the result of pushing additional energy, in the form of a magnetic field, through the vortexes in a conductor.
(17) Static Discharge and Lightning
The conventional theory is that static discharge is caused when a positively charged element steals electrons from another element, and this may sometimes be true. However, if heat and electricity are both the same substance, it may be possible that something akin to static discharge could result from the rapid transference of heat. The energy that excites particles when heated is no different from electrical energy. When a warm element (or body) contacts a cold, conductive element, and there is no water (like humidity) to intermediate or absorb much of the excess thermal energy as it passes between them, if the difference in temperature is great enough, this transference of heat could potentially result in static discharge. Static discharge is more prominent when it is cold. This could have something to do with humidity, as the conventional theory would probably state, but it may also have something to do with there being a greater difference in temperature, such as the temperature difference between a warm body and cold metal. The greater the difference in temperature, the more likely this will occur. Even if an object is room temperature, if it is contacted by an extremely cold, flammable liquid, for example, the drastic transference of heat may cause static discharge, resulting in ignition.
This alternative theory of static discharge is mostly speculation. Though, it may be possible to test which theory is true by measuring the direction that the exchanged electrical energy travels. The direction the electricity travels may need to be measured rather than measuring which body the electricity enters, because it is possible that both bodies will feel a surge of energy as the electricity is concentrated and passed between them. This could be done using a device like a highly sensitive compass needle. In the conventional theory, electrons flow from a region with electrons to give to a region missing electrons, but in the alternative theory, electricity flows from the warmer object to the colder object, making electrical conduction and heat conduction more similar than previously thought.
The conventional theory for the creation of lightning is that ice crystals rub together in a cloud, creating a positively charged region and a negatively charged region which, upon those regions meeting, results in a large static discharge. However, when clouds were searched for those positive and negative regions, the difference in charge was never strong enough to be capable of producing lightning. Furthermore, it is clear that water and ice are not required for the creation of lightning, since lightning can be found in volcanic plumes and sandstorms (dry lightning), despite sand being an insulator and so it should not conduct static electricity in that way. It does not seem that lightning is actually static discharge. So, what is it that these three lightning-producing events (rainstorms, sandstorms, and volcanic eruptions) have in common that could produce lightning? The answer is rapid cooling as the elements rise in the atmosphere. Thermal energy and electrical energy are the same substance. When water is heated, in order to evaporate, it must collect enough additional energy to result in a phase change. As the water vapor rises, it cools and condenses again, creating clouds and rain, but the additional electricity which the water collected in the form of thermal energy still exists. That excess electricity is freed from the atoms and builds up, and, if done so quickly enough and in high enough quantity, will result in discharge (lightning). The same release of heat occurs in volcanic plumes and sand storms, except without a phase change. The reason lightning is not typically found with hurricanes is perhaps because its motion is primarily horizontal rather than vertical; so, the water is not lifted higher where it can cool quickly. Unusually strong hurricanes, however, often still have lightning - typically above the eye-wall where its updraft is strongest. This leads to what might be the most important factor in the creation of lightning in all cases: the production of lightning appears to be aided heavily by updrafts, which force the elements higher into the atmosphere where they cool rapidly; otherwise, the electricity would have more time to dissipate before building up in a quantity great enough to produce lightning.
(18) Solar Corona and Celestial Heat
A corona is a large layer of plasma surrounding a star. Because of this plasma, it is believed that the Sun's corona is about 1,000,000–2,000,000 kelvin (K), although the Sun's photosphere (surface) is only about 4,500-6,000 K and its sunspots, which are darker, are roughly 3,000–4,500 K. This seems to defy the intuitive prediction that it would be hotter and brighter nearer to the center of the Sun. It is like heat increasing as you back away from a fire.
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the corona is not actually hotter than the surface of the Sun, but, instead, the plasma seen in the corona is an emergent property of dense space and not an indication of temperatures exceeding 1-million degrees. If particles are made of dense space, then the density of the space around the Sun may be sufficient enough to result in particle generation, even if the particles are unstable. That would cause dense space to appear as plasma. Also, it should take heat waves longer to pass through denser space, which should add to the amount of energy in the region surrounding the Sun. It seems that coronal plasma and quantum fluctuations have the same cause, but in dramatically different proportions due to the difference in energy density in the regions being observed.
Stars are primarily classified by their surface temperature. The classes are as follows: O > B > A > F > G > K > M. Class O stars have between 15 and 90 times the mass of the Sun and a surface temperature between 30,000 and 52,000 K. On the other end, class M stars have a solar mass between 0.075 and 0.5 and a surface temperature below 4,000 K. Class M stars are by far the most common type of star in our galaxy (76.45%). Class M stars and some class K stars are typically what we call "red dwarf" stars, because of their reddish appearance due to having low luminosity. Brown dwarf stars, which are even dimmer (and more of a dark red than brown), are considered "substellar objects (an astronomical object with less mass than the smallest mass at which hydrogen fusion can be sustained)."
Heat and light are the same substance. This is the main reason why hotter objects typically produce more light and objects that produce a lot of light are typically very hot. If heat, luminosity, and mass are all measurements of the density of light, it would follow that the burning of stars should come as a natural result of being dense space. Since space and heat are the same physical material, denser space must be hotter by definition. That would help to explain why the cores of stars and planets are hotter than their surface. It also suggests that the most central difference between stars and planets is their mass. Stars and planets should be viewed as being on the same gradient, with dwarf stars positioned between them on that gradient, arranged according to their mass. We do not have planets with more mass than a star, because, then, they would be stars, and we do not have stars with less mass and volume than a planet, because they would be classified as planets. Jupiter is a good example of this. It is close to the mass of a small star, its atmosphere is mostly made of hydrogen and helium in roughly solar proportions, and it is almost as turbulent as a star. It is also inexplicably hot despite receiving only 3.3% as much sunlight as Earth, yet it has regions on it with temperatures hotter than lava.
As with the magnetic fields of planets, there also appears to be a correlation between a planet's turbulence (movement in the atmosphere, like storms) and its mass and density. The larger and denser the planet is, the stronger its magnetic field, the more heat it contains and produces, and the higher its turbulence. Even on Earth, we supposedly see a correlation between heat and the number of storms. Storms seem to have less to do with energy from the Sun than they do with heat and magnetism. For example, Uranus, which is distant from the Sun, still has storms. Also, if there is a correlation between a planet's magnetic field and its mass and density, then the same correlations should be apparent in its electrical activity, like aurorae - the greater its mass and density, the stronger its aurora.
(19) Predictions
Here is a list of 68 predictions or statements that would be true if Universe of Light is correct, including pieces of evidence which support Universe of Light. 21 are already tested (T), and 47 are untested (U). Since the math has not yet been gathered and completed, most of the untested predictions are more qualitative than quantitative.
(U) Only the electromagnetic field (or light) exists. All other forms and operations are the result of light.
(U) Everything is made of and a part of a single body of material composed only of waves with no division between them, and that material exists within three unchangeable spatial dimensions and warps within and separately from the dimensions.
(U) The statement above should also satisfy the "cosmological constant problem" or "vacuum catastrophe."
(T) There is no space without energy in it and no physical space apart from energy.
(U) Both space and everything in it are made of the same material. When the material that both space and everything in it are made of gathers, it creates the warping of space that results in General Relativity. The warping of space is physical and 3-dimensional.
(U) Light, which everything is made of, travels toward the densest region in space, which is the cause of gravity and the origin of mass. Light is not massless. It is mass.
(U) All particles being made of the same material as the space in which they sit explains why mass and energy are equivalent.
(U) Light traveling toward the densest region in space inevitably results in the formation of vortexes, which are the true form of fundamental particles.
(U) Light spiraling into vortexes is the mechanism that counteracts entropy.
(T) All objects emit light (i.e. electromagnetic radiation or black body radiation).
(T) Particles and molecules have wave-like properties.
(U) Particles and molecules have wave-like properties because they are vortexes made of waves.
(U) The motion of an individual particle in the Double-Slit Experiment is guided by the motion of waves passing through the vortex and in the space around it, rather than the particle being in multiple positions simultaneously. There are no clouds of probability and their wavefunction is not collapsed by observation.
(U) All densities are infinitely divisible rather than quantized since everything is made of waves and not particles. There exists no "mass gap" between the vacuum state and the particle with the smallest mass. That smallest particle is determined by having enough energy (or space) in a region to form a stable vortex; otherwise, it will dissipate almost immediately.
(U) Quantum fluctuations are caused by existing energy rather than borrowed energy that is created and destroyed.
(U) Neutrino oscillation is caused by gaining or losing energy as light passes through them.
(U) Cosmic rays may be created in the vicinity of the detector, not a detection of a distant event.
(U) Large-scale, location-specific vortexes (galactic and solar), in which objects such as stars and planets move with the space around them, are the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment was unable to detect motion through space. It is also likely the cause of stellar aberration.
(T) Changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light.
(T) Varying densities of space cause gravitational lensing.
(T) Space can ripple.
(T) Frame dragging - spinning moves space.
(U) Everything being made of light is the reason why nothing can travel faster than light.
(U) Particles are able to absorb and emit light because they are made of the electromagnetic field.
(T) Particles can turn into one another.
(U) Information does not need to be conserved.
(U) The speed and direction of time is determined by the speed and direction of light waves.
(U) Time flows consistently across the universe. There is a universal time determined by the motion of light.
(U) Time dilation is only the result of measuring differences in density and motion in the EM field.
(U) The density of space varies within galaxies as well as between galaxies and intergalactic space. Space within a galaxy is denser nearer to the center, and so objects nearer to the edge of a galaxy travel through space that is less dense, leading to increased movement relative to the dimensions. This negates dark matter.
(U) Intergalactic space is stretched thinner than it is within galaxies. This has led to inaccurate measurements of distance, age, and luminosity.
(T) Light travels slower through stronger gravity (or denser space) than through weaker gravity (or less dense space).
(U) The speed of light relative to the dimensions is determined by the density of the material it travels through, which is also light. The speed of light increases as the density of the material decreases. Light travels faster than c between galaxies relative to the dimensions.
(T) The location of dark matter correlates strongly with the location of normal matter.
(T) The universe is flat/isotropic.
(U) The universe began in an expanded state (a very high-entropy state), opposed to using cosmic inflation. This should solve the "horizon problem."
(U) Light is stretched toward the galaxies, not stretched as the universe expands. Redshift was misinterpreted. The universe is not expanding and the Big Bang never happened.
(U) Light waves traveling through space that is stretching continually stretches the waves, which is why redshift increases with distance, opposed to being propelled by dark energy.
(T) The universe is filled with magnetic fields.
(U) Everything being made of light should serve to explain the origin of cosmological magnetic fields.
(U) Black holes are galactic vortexes. They have no singularity. Energy passes through them rather than travelling inward forever.
(T) Black hole plasma jets (relativistic jets) - and the jets from the polar axes of particle and atomic vortexes - are the result of light (or matter) passing through their vortex. These astrophysical jets should be stronger when paired with accretion discs that have a stronger rotation (i.e., an "active” galaxy), which creates a stronger drain-like rotation at their center.
(U) The amount of matter entering a black hole should be equal to the amount leaving in the jets.
(T) There is a correlation between the age of a galaxy and the age of its black hole which indicates that they formed together.
(T) Fermi bubbles.
(T) Galactic X.
(T) Dwarf galaxies are few and swallowed by other galaxies - planets and stars too.
(T?) Atomic and particle vortexes produce a twisting motion.
(T) All matter produces a magnetic field.
(U) Magnetism is electricity (or light) in motion.
(U) The motion of light through the vortexes causes them to behave like dipole magnets. The smaller the vortex, the more apparent this effect is. Charge is determined by a vortex’s direction of rotation relative to another vortex and the flow of space around it. Antimatter, quantum spin, and positive and negative charges are all false. There is no matter-antimatter asymmetry (baryon asymmetry).
(U) Monopoles can't exist because an intake of waves must be paired with an output of waves.
(U) A stronger or larger rotation results in a stronger charge.
(U) Charge carrying particles do not escape and are not absorbed in particle colliders.
(U) Protons are composed of three vortexes linked in a ring, forming a larger vortex through their center. Those vortexes are the true forms of quarks. There is no Strong Force or gluons. This should also solve the "color confinement problem."
(U) Neutrons are possibly a proton-electron pair, which is what they decay into. There is no Weak Force or W and Z bosons.
(T) Atoms are composed of rings and shells.
(U) Atoms are composed of rings and shells with particles in definite positions. Proton-neutron rings form the stronger, inner vortex, and electron rings form the weaker, outer vortex.
(U) Electron rings filling is the cause of jagged ionization energy spikes. There are no "atomic orbitals."
(U) An electron ring forms around the center of an atom and gets pushed off center as a new ring forms.
(U) Rotation must be balanced between the nucleus and electrons in an atom. An atom is stabilized by counter-rotation.
(U) A photon is not emitted when an electron moves from one orbital distance to another, but, instead, to keep it from moving from one orbital distance to another.
(U) Some forms of static discharge may be caused by drastic heat transfer.
(U) Lightning is caused by the release of energy during rapid cooling.
(U) The effects seen in coronal plasma are an emergent property of dense space.
(T?) A planet's magnetic field, electrical activity, and turbulence should generally correlate with its mass and density. Their magnetic fields may not always be caused by internal dynamos.
(U) All objects cause light to bend toward and around them. This is the cause of celestial magnetic fields.
(U) The burning of stars comes as the natural result of being dense space.
(U) Universe of Light is the Theory of Everything.
A mathematical equation for the theory of everything has been long sought after. Until the actual math is finished, this is the best placeholder I can offer to say that everything is made of light:
c = ∀
I hope you enjoyed Universe of Light: Solving the Biggest Mysteries in Physics by Cody Livengood. Feel free to share this book with others. Support and reviews are always appreciated.
You can follow Cody Livengood on Facebook at www.facebook.com/codylivengood