The Four Pseudoforces
Reader Stephen Mooney writes:
You’re correct to propose an Infinite Universe Theory. The Big Bang theory is simply absurd. However, there are three matters that you need to take into account.
The first is that the four forces of Physics are caused by the absorption of emission.
The second is what I call the first law of Physics: “matter is constructed into higher forms through the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission, and its stability is relative to the density of the impacting emission”.
The third is that although the Universe is infinite in distance and duration (space and time), it’s finite in its construction possibilities.
Thanks for the three comments, which allow me to expound further on some important points that Steve Puetz and I have previously discussed in UCT.
1. First, the four forces of physics do not exist. That is because force, like momentum, energy, and space-time, is a matter-motion term. Matter-motion terms represent calculations that we perform in physics to help us understand matter and the motion of matter. Thus, the so-called “four forces” (gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong) really should be renamed the “four pseudoforces.” All forces describe the same activity: one microcosm hits another microcosm (F=ma). The reason the four pseudoforces got to be so popular is because the univironment in which these motions of matter occur is thought to be devoid of a macrocosm. When your surroundings are empty space or an immaterial field, you have nothing, that is, “no thing,” to produce the behaviour being attributed to that mysterious force. Regressive physicists, like other indeterminists, love this stuff. May the force be with them!
2. In UD, we call this complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). Thus, your first law actually works both ways. Things come into being via convergence; things go out of being via divergence (as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, I believe that your “emission” idea is the same as our neomechanical idea (TSW, neomechanics chapter). Both matter and the motion of matter may be emitted from one microcosm to be absorbed by another. Here is an example of the absorption of emitted motion:
Note that the internal motion within this microcosm has increased as a result. Similarly, the physical admittance of a supermicrocosm (emitted from somewhere else in the infinite universe) would increase the density of the microcosm. In addition, as we showed in UCT, vortex motion accelerates the concentration and density of microcosms, slowing their external linear motion by converting it into rotational motion. This produces some of the “stability” that you mentioned as the property of all structures.
3. You say that the universe is finite in its construction possibilities. By this, I assume that you mean that some constructions are impossible, not that there is or will be an end to new, still to be realized constructions. Or as I have written: there are an infinite number of possibilities, but not a single impossibility (see: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-infinite-universe-theory-mean-that.html).