COSMOS, BY FORCES

This encloses the results of critical examination on the origins of our universe that we measure and depend upon. The critique will show an inverse relation for extrapolating the cosmos nature.

It is widely held that the functions of the cosmos are premised upon the motion of bodies. A notion supported by Albert Einstein, as in principles laid out by Ernst Mach and Euclid and James C. Maxwell.  Einstein has said (for mass or matter, M) that by those principles,

'requires that mass be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body.'  Einstein also wrote that he " could not abide a world without matter".

Recent research in many areas of science strongly indicate, for the cosmos, this claim may not be supported by findings. For example, studies indicate that baryon matter is very diminished throughout the known cosmos and will continue to lessen at least by volume so it could be a 1:9 ratio against space. It has also been determined that a universe need not even have matter, as was illustrated by W. de Sitter on General Relativity around 1917, and others since like Edward Kasner.

Thorough studies of elements indicate that our universe is directed more primarily by forces and they are essential for molding stars, galaxies, clusters and planets and hence with their influence on bodies, makes mass secondary for the formation of the cosmos.

When one realizes that component bodies are brought together and molded, then one may be interested how this comes about. Preformed matter does not just pop into existence. It is shaped and will change. Outside of Euclidean geometry, one may consider, past planar angles often resorted to, the Riemann Curvatures that also describes physics of the universe.

If a universe is composed absent of matter, then what can  produce shapes in a massless world and produce expansion? One element that contributes to this and may said not to be of mass is [p] pressure. Pressure can be measured in great variation in the universe. If pressure is strong enough, then there can be consolidation and so matter may be formed and shaped. If it weakens then the condensates dissipate.  If it is not strong, then no coalescence and no matter forms, just a vacuum like existence and even perhaps no universe at all will be discernable.

 

Other evidence indicates the current universe may have had an initial expansion which is losing its momentum. In recent studies of observations, it is evident that there is a second expansion energy detected. It is an expansion which at present is of  undetermined development but is believed to be driven by energy, tagged, dark energy.

For the prior claims of explosive developments, similar to Einstein's idea of energy contained in small bodies, it first needs to fully be determined that is indeed how the universe with all its current and far future size was formed from such an event. Some scientists don't believe there is enough matter in the universe to bring about the volume we see today with Einstein's nuclear concept and for sure in the distant future the diffusion of matter will make that ever so much so depleted by volume ratios. Hence, it may be determined that the formula E=MC2 could be insufficient to explain the volume and matter ratio of the universe. [E=MC2 has become preferred because it unleashed the nuclear age rather than providing the primeval foundational explanation of the cosmos.] [Einstein is not the originator of the equation E=MC2]. Further, E=MC2 is not the only formula of outcome in General Relativity. There are found several alternative outcomes recorded in Einstein's work, not just from other scientists.

 Secondly, it behooves one to explain the surge of second expansion that is recently detected which presumably is not related to the first. Since there is the second surge that likely is not of the same origin as the first which is waning, then it needs to be extrapolated in detail in what way it otherwise came about and how it progresses and continues to progress as dark energy or empty space which were failed to be earlier detected. So far, this monotonic, second expansion as dark energy has not been tied to cosmic bodies, as is apparent with the first.

Until very recently, most measures of the cosmos depended upon the bodies, their dimensions, location and speed [inertia].

Matter has limits, therefore one only obtains limited glimpses of cosmos as a whole by these constrained features. The "position of particles" is not a bearing on the overall morphology of the cosmos, as was once believed. Further, there is no precedent to creating energy prior to empty space. Hence, energy, "E", is not derived from a matter dependent condition, as is the rest of the cosmos. Matter content is constrained and follows limits, space is unbounded. Matter depends on space for spatial presence, not vise versa.

Illustration of these events show that the universe need not be shaped by the elements of matter, rather non material elements are influential such as energy and pressure.

Alexander Friedmann has wrote,  Particles whose worldlines are straight worldlines of our world move by inertia. All other particles move under the action of forces.

The pressures [p] and energies are much more disseminated and pervading in the cosmos, as well as being forces of formation. ( Gravity usually is said to be effective only due to presence of a body. This is in contrast to universes that can arise with no matter, in accordance to General Relativity formulas.) Those forces will provide a much more fulfilling picture and data base of the activities and functions of the universe compared to mass, M, which is much more subject to being constrained and sometimes is absent of matter even in great ratios, e.g. cosmic voids that comprise over 40% of the universe with some stretching millions of light years across or universes with no material.

With evident great diminishment of matter in the cosmos, there will be a corresponding reduction of ways to measure distance and such related events.  The universe may reach an expanse of over 100,000 times its current size by at least volume and be immensely dark. Likely, the only way left to measure anything of the universe will be only by volume, as other measurement means would be meaningless with such circumstances. Can you imagine after 2 billion or 3 trillion years have passed and the expansion will have proceeded so extensively or that all the stars have burned out of what relevance the measurements we quibble over today will have then?

 This illustrates science issues should have all avenues considered instead of choice few to provide exhaustive explanations.

 

Reviews

[Salem Gray]

Interesting story. Your writing keeps the flow of everything going really smoothly. Although I'm a bit stumped as to what genre this really is: it feels like a research paper or non-fiction, at the very least, which is fine, but I assumed it was a story. Anyway, great research. As an English major I know what its like to research topics that you may or may not hate or love.