You are hereLattice Theory
Scout to the Pole presents a radically new concept for the structure of mass and energy in the universe. This section of the website summarizes the concepts behind this theory.
The key principle behind the theory is that space is actually FILLED with particles which are called AAs in the book. More precisely, space is filled ONLY with AAs. The AAs fill space like a crystal or lattice.
The second key point is that matter is created by REMOVING an AA from the lattice. Right! What all of physics to date has assumed, that mass is some addition of material to empty space, has been reversed by this theory. Mass occurs when a link in the lattice is somehow removed.
The result of these two assumptions is profound. The theory, in its current form, does not produce any mathematical descriptions. Rather, it produces a visualizable logical model which is sufficiently simple in basic structure, but complex in combinations, to describe every known observation of mass and energy in science. I say it is profound because it provides a simple model that explains “force at a distance”, the creation of mass from nothing, and the transformation of mass into energy. It also doesn’t require any dimensions beyond the three we observe; it doesn’t require space-time concepts; and, it provides a simple explanation for the major astronomical observations including the big bang and black holes.
Here is the related dialog from chapter 21 of LIARS! Vol. 1: Scout to the Pole.
( Note: The dialog is taken from the “teaching version” of the book which has not yet been published. This version has many subheadings to separate each element of the theory. )
Lattice Theory - A Grand Unification Theory - In Memory of Albert Einstein
**Problems with the Theory of Relativity
“Here. I brought in a bunch of éclairs to munch on. Celebrate. You have now joined the Society of Creators of Great Lost Ideas. When you die, you can meet all the great philosophers, Leonardo da Vinci, Einstein and all the others who never had a chance to bring out even half their great ideas. In fact, I bet these two ideas are not the only great inventions you came up with in the last 24 hours?”
“Come on Bill. I’m all out of inventions.”
“I thought you couldn’t turn your mind off?”
“Yeah, yeah. OK. Go ahead. Pick a topic. Let’s see if there are any other ideas rattling around inside my head.”
“Let’s see? We’ve covered scanning electron microscopes, Fibonnocci Numbers, a new picture phone that will revolutionize the future, a replacement for human muscles, high speed trains that go as fast as satellites, money that can’t be stolen, CAM memory, and how to make computers think like humans. You know, I don’t think I’m pushing you hard enough. Let’s shoot for the moon. . . . . In fact, let’s go even higher than that. How about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? The world is ready for a new theory about that. I’m sure you’ve already made that obsolete by now.”
“Well, come to think of it, I do have some new ideas in that regard.”
“Why am I NOT surprised?”
“Come on Bill. Remember the quicksand. I just can’t stop thinking about things that don’t make sense to me.”
"So, you’ve got a replacement for the Theory of Relativity?”
Theory of Relativity does not describe reality
“Well, not exactly. But, as I said, I do have some new ideas in that regard. I do know most of the details of Einstein’s basic concepts. I read some about them in high school, and we covered basic Relativity in first year physics. I guess what really got me going about it wasn’t anything to do with the theory itself, but rather something that Einstein himself said about it. I wish I could remember where I read it.
In any case, it said that Einstein never really believed his own theory. Actually, that’s not precisely what he said. What the book said was that Einstein did NOT believe that the Theory of Relativity, as he wrote it, actually described how the universe worked.”
“This I’ve got to hear.”
“What caused him to start working on his theory was the idea going around that the speed of light was CONSTANT for EVERY OBSERVER. He thought about that and decided such a statement was nonsense! When examined in detail, it didn’t even make logical sense.
The way the book described this was, in order to say that anything moves at constant speed, you first have to define SPEED. The basic definition of speed is the measure of the RATE of change of position between TWO points. So, speed must be determined by taking distance measurements RELATIVE to the two points involved and comparing changes against something called TIME.
Inability to define stationary or rest
If you are in some kind of vehicle, but can’t see out, or reach out, or communicate with the outside, you have no way of measuring distance. So you have no way of knowing how fast you are moving, or if you are even moving at all. Therefore, from a UNIVERSAL viewpoint, there is actually no way to define what it means to be stationary. That is, there is no way to define that an object is stopped, or at rest. You can’t use the stars as a reference, because they are all moving. And you can’t use the emptiness of space as a reference because there is nothing there to measure against.
This is NOT the case for all kinds of motion. Speed only applies to constant rate of motion in a straight line. Acceleration, which means a change in rate of motion, can be measured inside a closed vehicle without any external reference using an accelerometer. Rotation can also be measured inside a closed vehicle without any external reference using a gyroscope.
So, speed in a straight line is a special case. You have to look outside and say speed relative to something.”
"Sure. That makes sense.”
“So, if we want to say the speed of light, which is something that moves in straight lines, is constant, we have to specify constant with respect to something?”
"Correct. And the answer that forms the basis of the Theory of Relativity is that the speed of light is constant with respect to the OBSERVER.”
“Right. The observer is one point. ‘LIGHT’ , whatever that is, is the second point. And measurements of the distance between the two against ‘TIME’, whatever that is, gives us speed. This is what gave Einstein heartburn. It didn’t make logical sense to him for a bunch of very simple reasons.
For example, scientists were proposing that the speed of light is supposed to be constant at 186,000 miles per second with respect to EVERY OBSERVER at the same time. If a light beam is coming toward YOU from a star that’s a billion light years away, how does that light beam know how fast to travel through all of space so that it hits YOU at precisely 186,000 miles per second? How did it know, a billion years ago, to start out at some speed related to you and to precisely hold that speed for a billion years if you weren’t even born yet?
And how did the light beam know, when it started out a billion years ago, what speed you would be traveling when it hit you? That is, when you looked in the direction of that star to observe the light beam, the earth, orbiting around the sun, which is orbiting around the galaxy at a very high speed, could have been going directly toward the source star or directly away from it or any direction in between. If you were going toward it, the light beam would crash into you at a higher speed. If you were going away from it, the light beam would crash into you at a slower speed. You know what I mean, right?
If I throw a snowball at your truck when you are standing still, and my arm throws the snow ball at 20 miles per hour, it will hit the truck window at 20 miles per hour. But if you are driving towards me at 30 miles per hour, and I throw the snow ball at the same 20 miles per hour, then it will hit the window with an impact of 50 miles per hour. If you were backing away from me at 15 miles an hour, it would hit the window with an impact of only 5 miles per hour.”
“Well, as I said, Einstein understood that. He thought the idea of every observer seeing light at the same speed was absurd. But he was also a creative thinker. So he thought it would be a fun ‘academic exercise’ to show the world what bizarre things would have to happen if the equations of motion were modified based on the assumption that, somehow, all light beams had to hit their observers at precisely 186,000 miles per second, no matter how the observers were moving relative to one another. It is this bunch of calculations that are now called the SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY! Right?”
“Sure! But the entire world has totally forgotten about his actual approach. That is, they have forgotten that Einstein produced these equations, not to explain how the world really works, but to show how screwed up the universe would have to be to deal with the notion that the speed of light is the same for all observers. He hoped they’d see reason and give up on the idea.”
“So, you are saying Einstein was actually trying to tell people to give up on the idea that the speed of light is constant for all observers because to achieve that, too many other things get screwed up?”
“Right. Occam’s Razor! Choose the simple approach. But, instead, the world went nuts and took the equations as fact. Furthermore, the entire world, including most scientists, also overlook the simple fact that, even if the equations do describe what an OBSERVER believes they see, that doesn’t actually describe what is really going on.”
“Hmmm . . . what do you mean?”
“If you look at a rainbow, you can envision where it hits the ground. If I see the, quote, ‘same rainbow’, but I’m standing in a different place, I’ll report that it hits the ground in a different place. There are equations that can describe, precisely, where each of us will say the rainbow is hitting the ground. AND, it will hit the ground in a different place for EACH OBSERVER. But that doesn’t mean there is a physical rainbow in the sky, or that it actually hits the ground anywhere. There ISN’T a physical rainbow in the sky, even though almost everyone on earth can tell us they’ve seen one.”
“OK. But the motion of physical objects is different from rainbows.”
“Don’t be so sure of that. Think about a typical example that applies Einstein’s formulas. Two friends buy identical golf clubs and clocks. They then take rockets and fly to live on two separate planets: one red, the other green. The planets are in different orbits and go flying by each other at high speed. The equations of Relativity say that if the guy, on, say, the green planet, using beams of light, measures what happens on the red planet, he will measure that the golf clubs his friend bought are now shorter than his. He will also measure that his friend’s clock on the red planet is running slower than his.
The equations that make up the Theory of Relativity claim to calculate how much the measurements appear to be affected by the relative motion between the planets. But that doesn’t mean the objects will ACTUALLY be shorter or the clock will ACTUALLY be running slower. In fact, Einstein explained how such a view just led to a paradox. All you have to do is reverse the problem and ask the guy on the red planet what he sees. Using his light beams, he will think the green planet guy’s golf clubs are shorter and the green planet clock is running slower. So, the example produces a logical absurdity. Both observations can’t be true at the same time.
To extend this paradox one step further, if 20 scientists on 20 different planets moving at 20 different speeds make measurements of the golf clubs and clock on the red planet, and then have a conference, they will all report that the golf clubs are different lengths and the red clock reads a different time. “
“OK. I understand this example. It’s essentially like the ‘Twin Brother’ paradox that Einstein, himself, used all the time. That is, Einstein used twin brothers instead of clocks and sent them off on different rockets. According to the equations, they BOTH should measure that the other brother was younger, which can’t be true.”
Michelson-Morley experiment – part 1
“But why has the Theory of Relativity been proven true so many times?”
“Ah hah! Now it’s my turn to say that you’ve been con’d by the pack of LIES! I did a lot of research on this because it was really bugging me. What would you say is the biggest confirmation of Special Relativity?”
“Easy! The Michelson-Morley experiment which tried to measure the speed of the earth around the sun using light beams.”
“Right. That’s what most people would say. But that experiment is also one of the most greatly misunderstood experiments of all time. The Michelson-Morley experiment wasn’t done to test the Theory of Relativity. It couldn’t have been. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done in 1887. Einstein didn’t publish the Theory of Relativity until 1905.”
“Hmmm… I didn’t realize that.”
Basic controversy about light
So, now who’s humming? Let’s go back to basics here. The primary belief in the early 1800’s was that light was a wave. And just like water waves move through water, and sound waves move through air, it was believed that light waves had to move THROUGH something. That’s fine if light goes through air or water or glass. The big challenge was the vacuum of outer space. We know that light travels from the stars through space. So, whatever the stuff is that fills space, which light waves travel in, it must be pretty thin. It was commonly referred to as the “aether”, which is just the ancient Greek word for space.
In any case, Michelson got the idea that an instrument might be designed to sense the aether. He designed his experiment to measure the speed of the earth through the aether, thereby confirming that it was actually there.
For the experiment, he needed to make a bunch of assumptions. It was Michelson’s belief that if there was an aether, it would not be affected by the earth. That is, the aether would not be captured and dragged along by the earth. If that were so, there would be no relative motion of the aether with respect to the earth. So, he expected the aether to blow through space like a wind, and the motion of the earth could be measured against this wind.”
“He also must have assumed that the earth was not the center of the universe, as many religions claim. So there was very little chance that the aether and the earth would be moving at the same speed.”
“Right. But he also made a contradictory assumption that most people don’t know about. He assumed that the aether in the whole solar system would somehow be captured by the sun. He gave no explanation for how the sun could capture the aether but that the earth wouldn’t.”
“I didn’t realize that.”
“His goal then became to measure the speed of the earth in its orbit, which was known to be about 67,000 miles per hour. So far, so good?”
“Wait a minute. So you are saying he already had a number in mind that he expected to measure?”
“Correct! 67,000 miles per hour.”
“So, working on his own, he built an instrument and ran a test in 1881. The result he expected to get to confirm his hypothesis was a 0.04 shift of a light wave. Guess what? He didn’t get that. So, guess what he reported?”
“I know what he reported. History records that the experiment produced a NULL result!”
“Right! And most people, including most scientists, still assume that NULL meant ZERO! But that’s not what Michelson meant. By NULL, he meant he did NOT confirm his hypothesis. The fact is, he actually did measure a velocity. He measured a 0.02 shift.”
"Ah ha! Now I see where you’re going with this. If the result was a zero shift of the light waves, then we could say that he didn’t measure any aether blowing through the instrument, so there probably WASN’T any aether. But 0.02 was 50% of what he expected. So that would mean he actually did measure an aether speed.”
“Right. And because of a square law relationship, that measurement would mean that there WAS an aether and it was blowing 70% of the speed he expected or about 47,000 miles per hour.
But what did the world announce? Did they announce that the result was close? Did they announce that the result was not precise so it would still require more study? No! It was announced that there was a NULL result! The concept of the aether was DEAD!”
"Whoa! I didn’t know any of this. So, what has happened since?”
“What happened since is that the news media keeps bouncing off the walls grabbing on to simple answers to continue to support the no-aether assumption. The scientific community has polarized into yes and no communities more intent on winning their view than understanding what is really going on. In 1887, Michelson teamed up with Morley and improved the instrument. The new measurement was 0.03 against an expected shift of 0.4 waves. This was now only 3% of the expected amount. The velocity of the aether being related to the square root of this number gives an aether velocity of 16% of the expected amount or about 11,000 miles per hour. The aether was again declared DEAD by the press!
"But 16% isn’t zero. Has anyone followed up on this further?”
“They sure have! Michelson gave up. But Morley teamed up with Dayton Miller. In 1904, still before Einstein’s paper, using a further improved instrument, they got a 12% result.”
"So, it looks like better instruments were heading for a zero result.”
“Sure. But, as you said, 12% still isn’t zero. AND, the story doesn’t end there. Miller believed they were all getting duped. He didn’t accept that the aether could be captured by the sun, which was an assumption that Michelson made, but wasn’t also at least partially captured by the earth. He believed they were getting these small results because the mass of the earth was somehow trapping the aether around it. So he did more tests, always with better instruments, but on top of mountains, thinking that the effect might be less up there. In 1921, again with a further ‘improved’ instrument, he measured a 27% aether speed. Additional experiments, using similar methods, have been done since. Numbers I remember are Tomascheck, 1924, 26%; Miller, 1926, 28%; Kennedy, 1926, 17%; Piccard, 1927, 21%; and then Michelson again, 1929, 11%.”
"So, even with better and better instruments, the numbers surely aren’t going to zero.”
“Right! But look at the cover-up! One of the greatest experiments in all of science, with such monumental, but controversial results, keeps getting lied about so people can conveniently believe that their ‘world’ is under control.”
“Ok. This is very disturbing. But it’s totally not surprising to me. There is a clear atmosphere of self righteousness around scientists. Sure it’s easy for them to point their fingers at high school and college students for not being able to see beyond the end of their noses. But that fault doesn’t end with a college degree. Modern scientists all think that ideas they’ve just come up with are NOVEL. The opening paragraph of most scientific papers includes something like, ‘this topic has not been well documented in the literature.’ The fact is, in most cases, the authors haven’t spent more than a minimal amount of time researching what has already been done. And the university structure, despite all its claims to open inquiry and the advance of knowledge, provides only minimal cooperation to do this searching. And if they can keep getting government grants to do the same things over and over again, why would they shut off the spigot by being honest?”
Greek study of light
“Well, I did do some searching on the history of the science of light. Boy was I surprised. This whole topic is VERY far from new. In fact, it was already WELL documented in the, quote ‘literature’ by 380 BC ! I’m not kidding about this date. The ancient Greeks already had the basic principles pretty well outlined.
By 380 BC, there were already three schools of philosophy covering the EXACT same 3 basic concepts about the nature of light that current scientists still haven’t made much improvement on. The Greeks already understood light as parts of a communication problem. That is, in any communication system, there are three basic functions: a source, a transmission medium, and a receiver.
Pythagoras, about 530BC, taught that the eyes of animals were the key to light. The eyes reached out with miniature invisible hands on long, thin, invisible arms. These hands went out in the direction that the eye was aimed being bounded in the form of narrow cones. The hands felt objects that they ran into like a blind person would feel an object. The tactile feelings of these hands gave animals the perception of vision.
Democritus, in 460BC, taught that the key to light was a source. Democritus believed that everything in nature was composed of tiny particles he called ATOMS. The atoms of an object acted like a source, shedding skins of themselves that flew through the air. When the skin hit an animal, it shriveled up and went into the animals eyes, causing the animal to have a perception of the object that shed the skin.
Aristotle, about 380BC, taught that all surfaces had vibrations. But they did not shed skins. Instead, the vibrations caused waves in the air which were what traveled out in all directions like ripples in water. When the vibrations hit an animals eyes, it had the perception of the object that caused the vibrations.
After 2000 years, science is still stuck debating whether the speed of light, and therefore what controls the speed, is dependent on the source, the medium, or the receiver. In fact, science is still debating the basic principle of light: whether it’s a particle, ballistically launched by a source, a wave, propagating in an aether, or some unspecified set of hands that magically reach out from the observer and sense the source.”
“What? What scientist today is talking about hands reaching out?”
“Some sort of hands reaching out is what is needed to explain a mechanism for Einstein’s Special Theory. In order for the speed of light to appear the same for everyone who observes it, we actually need to be measuring the speed of our own magic arms reaching out because that’s the only way light can be referenced to the observer.”
“THIS IS AMAZING! And you’re saying all Einstein did was put numbers on the magic arm theory? He never actually told us how light worked?”
“And the power structure in science and government, strictly controls who gets the grant money. This essentially dictates which theories are the ‘currently permitted’ foundations of scientific belief.”
“Right! I’m starting to understand that. And it’s not that we haven’t seen a very profound example of that. In Russia, the only government sanctioned study of genetics was determined by Lysenko. The Russian government forced Russian scientists to follow his lead, which put Russian genetics behind the rest of the world for 40 years.”
“So, I gather you don’t believe the Theory of Relativity describes the true nature of light?”
“Right. For the same reasons Einstein himself didn’t believe it.”
"So, do you have your own theory? What am I saying? How could Nanook NOT have his own theory?”
**Grand Unification Theory - dislocations
“Actually, I didn’t start out looking for a theory of light. Einstein had long given up on that and was trying to develop a GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY that would include every force in the universe. So that’s what I was thinking about.”
"Of course! Why would you start out at the bottom. Go for the gold! Shoot for the stars!”
“I wasn’t actually aiming for anything specific. I was just really curious about all of this. Then I read about Einstein’s analogy that space could be thought of as a ‘fabric’. He also said that matter might be considered ‘KNOTS’ in the fabric of space.”
"Interesting visual image. But not very functional, right? I mean, matter moves around; knots don’t move around.”
“Right. That’s what I thought as well. And that’s what has probably prevented the world from seeing the wisdom in what he said. But the image stuck in my mind. Then, during last term, I was in a metallurgy class. It was fun because there was no textbook available at the start of the term. When we got to the first class, Professor Rose handed out the first two chapters. He said he was writing the book as we went along based on research he was doing in the lab. It was funny when he’d come into class and tell us to throw out the last few chapters because it was all nonsense. He just learned something new.
In any case, one day he came in and told us he had just made a major breakthrough. One of the classic questions in metallurgy is why metals are so weak.”
"Hold on. Metals seem to be pretty strong to me.”
“Sure. But what he meant was that, in comparison to the strength of metal crystals, bulk metals are much weaker.”
"So, you’re saying if you make a measurement of the strength of a single crystal of a metal, you get one number. If you test that metal in bulk form, which is made up of billions of crystals all stuck together, the strength is much lower.”
“Right. Maybe 10 times lower.”
"Wow. That’s quite a bit. So, maybe the crystals just don’t hook up so well?”
“Right. That was the conventional idea. Or should I say, that was the ‘currently permitted theory’ of metals. But Professor Rose didn’t buy it. We even did a lab where we looked at the contact structure of the crystals under a microscope. You could measure the amount of surface contact between the crystals. That allowed us to calculate what the strength should be. The numbers didn’t add up. There was a lot of crystal contact. One day, Professor Rose handed out a new chapter. In it he explained a new theory that there were small defects between the crystals he called DISLOCATIONS. These could not be seen with a visual microscope. But they could be seen with an electron microscope, even though they aren’t very good, which is why I was trying to improve them in high school. He just put in the extra effort to get some good pictures. What he found was that the dislocations could move around very easily in the metals. When you applied stress to the metal, the dislocations would move and group together. Unfortunately, they grouped in the places where the metal was at the highest stress. That caused big weak spots which finally grew into small cracks that shot across the metal like lightning bolts.”
"Sounds pretty interesting.”
“It was. And it was especially motivating to be discovering the theory right along side him, even if we had to rip up almost as many chapters as we read. The other interesting part of this is the process that led him to discover it.
He told us that one night when he was out drinking with the other professors, he noticed a particular pattern in the bubbles in his beer. It was just like a dislocation pattern that he saw with the electron microscope. That is, the bubbles in his beer were not just a uniform sheet. They actually formed separate islands that touched against each other. Along one boundary between two islands, he noticed that the bubble spacing did not exactly match on both islands. Maybe it was because one island had bubbles of slightly smaller size. In any case, the bubbles matched up for a small distance, then there was a small gap, then they matched up again. It was a DISLOCATION! He said he slowly pushed his finger into the bubbles. The gap shot across the beer like a rocket. As he played with where he put his finger, he found many gaps. He could make them race around by moving his finger.”
"Ah hah! So, that was his clue that something similar was happening in metals.”
“Right. And that’s the concept we followed for the rest of the semester. And I don’t doubt that this will lead to a new theory for the weakness of metals. At least when the other professors stop heckling him about playing with his beer.”
"Funny story. And I can see where they would support him, as long as the leaders of the metallurgy department don’t have their reputations based on a competing theory.”
“The whole concept of dislocations intrigued me. A similar phenomenon occurs in electrical conductors. Electric current is generally described as the “flow” of electrons. The way they teach it in high school is like a line of cars moving along a highway. But on the atomic scale, it’s not like that at all. The motion is jerky. In order to move a line of electrons in a wire, a number of intermediate steps have to occur. First an electron at the output end of the wire has to jump out of an atom in the wire. This creates an atom with a missing electron. In electronic terminology, this is called a HOLE. An electron in the next atom upstream toward the input jumps into this hole. That leaves a new hole in the atom it came out of. This process continues until all the electrons in a line from the input to the output move one atomic spacing.”
"Sure. Every electronic engineer knows this. It’s just like a bucket brigade.”
“But look at it from a distance. Over all, a large quantity of electrons have each moved a single atom step toward the output. But, curiously, what appears to look like a single HOLE, which is not actually a real thing at all, moves all the way from the output to the input in the opposite direction in the same period of time.”
“Sure. In a bucket brigade, all the buckets seem to move just ONE person to the right, while an empty set of hands appears to move all the way from the far right end of the line to the beginning of the line in the same period of time.”
“Well, maybe every electronic engineer knows about this, but not very many non-techies know it. And it intrigued me. Using your bucket brigade analogy again, if you mark one of the buckets and follow it along the line, it actually moves pretty slowly. But the empty set of hands going in the other direction seem to move very fast. And, in fact, in wires, the electrons don’t move anywhere near the speed of light. It is only the HOLES that actually move that fast.”
"Correct. But, actually, the electrons do move at the speed of light, but only one atom at a time. Then they sit there a long time waiting for the next hole to come along and give them a place to jump to.”
“Yeah, but that’s what got my attention. The entity that seemed to be doing all the work wasn’t actually a real thing. It was NOTHING. It was a HOLE. Or, more accurately stated, it was the absence of something. Two other examples of this are COLD and VACUUM. Neither of these really exist as physical properties. Cold is the absence of heat; vacuum is the absence of pressure. But we use these terms all the time in engineering and daily life. And we have equations that are made simpler by treating them as if they were real.”
"OK. So what’s the bottom line?”
“I got to thinking. What if Einstein’s KNOTS in the fabric were actually holes?”
"OK. Keep going. Now you’ve got the fabric of space filled with holes.”
“Well, actually, not quite. When you think of the word ‘fabric’ you think of something that stretches. The fibers are under tension. That’s another part of the image that’s misleading that we have to change. It occurred to me that maybe space was like a giant crystal under pressure.”
"OK! Hold on now. Let me have some fun with this. The whole universe is a giant crystal. At places in the crystal, something is missing. We call them dislocations. These dislocations are what you think we call MASS.”
"Hmmmm . . .. Give me a minute. I’m not saying no to this. It’s just miles away from anything my mind already has patterns to understand.”
“That’s exactly what I thought. It was really weird. But I kept waking up at night thinking about it. All of a sudden, a LOT of major questions in physics got solved. And I do mean a LOT - a lot of very, very BIG questions.
First off, while we can use the concept of a crystal as the analogy for the stuff that fills all of space, remember, this stuff is nothing like anything we understand now. But let’s suppose there is this stuff. Here’s as far as I’ve gotten with my theory.
First off, the stuff can’t be a bunch of spheres. It has to be more like little elongated crystals that join together at their ends. They might just be pushed together like molecules in water. But the angles that they can join together are limited, as if they had facets on their ends. Since these little ‘crystals’ would be the basic elements of the universe, I named them ‘Aa’.”
"You called them Aa’s. OH! Hold on here. You’re brain is working overtime. So, I suppose, that makes you the wizard of Aa’s?”
“Huh? What? Wizard of Aa’s? Neat. Yeah. I like that.”
"OK wizard. Keep going.”
“Neat! OK. So, as I said, an Aa may be visualized as an elongated crystal with multiple flat sides and faceted ends. The Aa is totally UNIQUE. It only occurs in one form. Everything we observe in the whole universe is made from Aa’s. Space is completely filled with Aa’s. There are no large expanses of emptiness. The Aa’s act as if they are under compression, like a fluid pressure. The Aa’s connect to each other. They join at their ends, creating a crystal ‘lattice’ that fills a simple, conventional, 3-dimensional space. That is, space is not 4-dimensions or 5 etcetera. The Aa’s join most strongly at their ends. They may also touch or join at their sides, I don’t know. But there is no physical “node” or mass at the connection point.”
"OK. Space is full of Aa’s. You should have called them ‘wonders’. Then we could have said space is full of wonders.”
“Hang on. Now this really get’s interesting. Over small regions, the space lattice has a structure like that of a single crystal. But it is amorphous or all mixed up over larger regions, say on the scale we associate with visible things - grains of sand, planets, stars, galaxies etcetera. An Aa doesn’t exhibit conventional mass properties, or at least not all the Newtonian mass properties we observe. An Aa may be elastic and have inertia. But the Aa’s interact completely without friction. Some peculiarity at the ends of the Aa’s only allow them to join at preferred angles. This is similar to and may help explain the bond angles we observe between molecules at the atomic scale. Force occurs as the contact angles bend due to the universal fluid pressure. Force also occurs if an Aa is compressed either axially or laterally. Aa’s may be much longer than they are wide, which may lead to bending properties.
Now comes the real important part:
MASS, or more specifically, any fundamental particle we observe, is CREATED in space by the occurrence of a DISLOCATION in the space lattice.”
“OK. Slow down. You’re saying this isn’t actually a hole. Because, if you pull one of the Aa’s out, then the surrounding lattice pushes in on the missing space, closing it up, right?”
“Right. But when the lattice closes in, the surrounding Aa’s have to bend.”
“Ahhh! I get it. So, it is a flaw - it’s a dislocation.”
“Right. Specifically, MATTER IS A LOCAL IRREGULARITY OR DISLOCATION IN THE LATTICE OF SPACE.”
"OK. Now I see how all the stuff you told me comes together. Space is a giant spongy crystal. Einstein’s knots are actually flaws in the crystal. These flaws can move around like dislocations in metals.”
Space Lattice Theory
“Right. Now you’re getting it. So, welcome to the new theory of space. I call it SPACE LATTICE THEORY. Now let me tell you why I am so excited by this model. This simple principle can profoundly describe so many things we observe in the universe, some of which have never been explained in any other logical way.
Matter / Antimatter
Let’s start with the question of MATTER and ANTIMATTER. MATTER or mass is a volume in space where MULTIPLE Aa’s appear to be missing from the lattice. Antimatter is a volume in space where additional Aa’s appear to somehow be squeezed into the lattice. This can explain two things. One is how matter and antimatter can disappear when they collide. A particle of MATTER which is created by missing Aa’s, could be annihilated by a particle of ANTIMATTER, which has surplus Aa’s because the extra Aa in the antimatter would just fill in the hole from the missing Aa that made up the particle of matter. The annihilation could produce substantial energy, and ONLY energy, because when the collision is over, all that’s left is the natural space lattice.”
"Wow. Pretty clever.”
Big Bang – imbalance of matter / antimatter
“Hang on. This was just a start. Let’s look at one of the BIGGEST questions of all: the BIG BANG! Big Bang theory needs to explain how all the mass of the universe appears out of nowhere. Not easy based on what we know. But the creation of matter out of nothing is easily handled by Lattice theory.”
“OK. I know I’m sitting down already. But I think I’d better lie on the floor to hear this one.”
“What if there was a huge irregularity of stress in the space lattice that could open up a huge VOID in the lattice. This would be like a universal earthquake. If that happened, Aa’s would flake off the edges of the void and fall into the void in random orientations. As the void collapsed, matter would be created as Aa’s were trapped in distorted arrangements.”
“OK. Hold on again. Let me think about this. This is wild! So, all the matter that we see in the universe could actually be created out of nothing! That’s because it IS actually nothing. It’s places where there are malformations caught in the normal lattice structure as the void closed up. Wow. That could also possibly explain why there would not necessarily be the creation of an equal amount of antimatter, which is what we observe, because a void is essentially a net absence of Aa’s.”
“Right. This is the second observation about antimatter. And this model also answers a number of additional major related questions.
There is no rational explanation for how matter can expand out of the big bang, which was essentially a small point or what mathematicians call a singularity? If all the mass of the universe was collected in just a small point, it would essentially be the mother of all black holes? The Aa’s model suggests that the space lattice was deformed by some event to form a large void. It never was a singularity. As the void collapsed, it squeezed the Aa’s inside it together where they mostly just reformed into space lattice. But not all of them came back together in perfect order. The disorder became what we call mass. As the void collapsed, it would create huge pressures that would blow the dislocations outward.”
“So, the Aa model actually supports a lot of the Big Bang concept. It just doesn’t require the singularity.”
“Right. So it eliminates the need to change any of the laws of physics during that event. The void could be huge. So we don’t need the small point theory or the singularity. The particle formation could also take place over a long period of time.”
“OK. Keep going.”
The reverse process, i.e. the destruction of matter back into nothing, is also explained by this theory. And this is, astonishingly, the role and fate of BLACK HOLES. As mass, which is just structured dislocations, falls into a Black Hole, it can essentially be converted back into pure lattice. A particle is a structure that is deficient in Aa’s. As particles fall into the black hole, the extreme pressures could force the dislocated Aa’s into alignment, thereby producing pure lattice. The rearrangement of the Aa’s would just produce huge amounts of lattice that squeezes out of the Black Hole and bends space.”
“Good thing I’m lying here on the floor. This would surely knock me off my chair. But hang on. I thought nothing can escape from a black hole?”
“That’s the current theory. But it only applies to things that have mass. Space lattice doesn’t have mass. “
“Wow! So, where else does this story go next?”
“In nature, we observe a wide variety of particles. The different types of PARTICLES can be explained by different configurations of dislocations. Essentially, then, an infinite number of particle types can be created by causing more varieties of dislocations. This could explain why we keep getting more particle types with stronger particle accelerators. Only specific arrangements, however, are stable due to the joining angle restrictions of the Aa. The physics of how the Aa’s attach at their sides and ends govern particle stability.
Particle motion is described by allowing the dislocations, or collections of dislocations, to move through the lattice. A propagating dislocation may be compared to a ‘hole’ moving in a semiconductor. Particles can change form by rearranging their dislocations.”
“Ah hah! This is an interesting way to look at radioactivity.”
“Right. Radioactivity involves the change of atomic structure and the conversion of mass into energy. Lattice theory provides a description for how this might happen. As the new particle structures form, the Aa’s may rearrange into simpler forms. Some even turn back into basic space lattice. Where ever an Aa becomes space lattice, the mass they used to be would disappear and be released as photons.
As a passing note about radioactivity, it is often said that radioactivity is entirely random. This is not so. The random emission of radioactive decay for any specific material is very tightly constrained to a specific half-life time period for that material. Some materials decay in fractions of a second whereas other in millions of years. This implies that there is a deterministic cause-effect process involved that we just don’t understand yet.
Gravity - Force at a distance
Hang in there Bill. It keeps getting better. FORCE AT A DISTANCE is one of the greatest puzzles in all of physics. It can easily be explained by lattice theory. A VACUUM does not actually produce a suction force. Forces we observe in liquids and gases are caused by a PRESSURE which is not equally opposed. According to the Aa model, the same process is occurring at the Aa scale in the universe. The universal lattice is under pressure. As mass is created by dislocations, the shape of the lattice in the area around the mass changes. If many masses come together, the overall lattice shape is further distorted. If a dislocation finds itself in part of the lattice that is distorted, it experiences an uneven force that causes it to move. It moves in a direction that brings it toward the area of maximum distortion just like we see with dislocations. But specifically, masses are being PUSHED together by the pressures of a warped lattice; they are not pulled together by some attractive means. Force occurs at a distance because the lattice is bent by the presence of defects.”
“OK. Let me try one. What you are saying is that what Einstein called the GRAVITY FIELD is the CUMULATIVE WARPING OF THE UNIVERSAL LATTICE DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF DISLOCATIONS. And the force of gravity is the pressure of the distortions of the lattice on individual dislocations.”
“Right. That’s just what Einstein said. Each dislocation, or particle of mass, warps the structure of the universal fabric, or lattice in my case. This supports Einstein’s view of gravitation as a warped field in space.”
“Hmmm. But this would also mean that lattice theory implies that gravity is limited because the bending of the lattice is limited.”
Back to the Black Hole
“Right. The angles that the lattice can bend into are limited. That takes us back to Black Holes. If the intense pressure at the center can tear particles apart, it can let the Aa’s reform into pure lattice. The newly formed lattice would reduce the bending in the lattice, thereby reducing the effective gravity of the Black Hole. So, ironically, while initially formed as a concentration of mass, once the Black Hole reaches a certain size, additional mass will just be converted into pure space. A Black Hole would become just a steady state mass eater. But it wouldn’t continue to increase in mass indefinitely.”
" Hmmm. So, if this is true, could we locally overcome gravity by introducing a void in the lattice and straightening the field.”
“Theoretically, I guess. Ready to go on?”
"You’ve got to be kidding. How could anyone be ready for this? Go for it!”
General Theory of Relativity
“And now we can explain why light bends in a gravity field. It bends because it propagates along the structure of the lattice. The lattice is bent by the presence of mass, which is just a collection of dislocations, each of which bend the fabric of space.”
“But going a step further finally explains the General Theory of Relativity.”
“OK. I’m going to lie down on the floor again for this one.”
“To do this, we have to show how forces related to mass arise in the lattice.
"You mean, like inertia?”
“Right. If you analyze the motion of waves on water, you find that once you build up a wave and start it moving, the weight of the water falling at the rear of the wave causes the front of the wave to build up. The newly raised water then falls and pushes up more water. When a mass moves through the lattice, a moving 3 dimensional wave in the lattice surrounds the mass.”
“So, you’re saying the reason objects set in motion continue to move in straight lines at the same speed is because they are riding a wave.”
“Right. The wave will stay the same shape unless some new force is applied to change it.
It should also be obvious that if space is bent by other masses, the direction of the wave will bend to follow the curve of space – i.e. gravity.
Another principle follows from this as well – F=ma. In order to accelerate a large mass, more force is needed because a larger wave has to be created.”
“I think I see a problem with this part of the theory. Don’t all waves on water move at the same speed?”
“That’s right for water. It’s also right for sound waves moving in air and through materials as well. The sound wave analogy is actually right for the speed of light in the lattice. But the analogy isn’t right for dislocations moving in metals. They can move at any speed, depending on the stress in the material. But their speed is limited by the speed of sound in the metal. “
“NEAT! And you just explained why the speed of light can be a true limit for the motion of objects.”
“Exactly! And we also established why the basic principle of General Relativity is what it is. Mass is only accelerated by a distortion in the lattice.”
“Keep going space shot!”
Speed of light
“And here we get a look at the mechanism which determines the SPEED OF LIGHT. The lattice must have some properties comparable to what we call elasticity and inertia. As a photon pulse enters the lattice, the lattice must bend somehow. The bending must be resisted by an elastic force. This is the pressure that holds the whole lattice together. The elastic force tries to restore the original shape of the lattice. The time it takes to restore the original shape is determined by the strength of the elastic force and the resistance to motion cause by the inertial properties of the Aa’s. The ratio of force to inertia determines how fast the pulse will be pushed along the lattice. This also would determine the speed of gravity waves since gravity is also a deformation of the lattice. Gravity waves would propagate at a similar speed.
Speed limit for objects
“And using this model, the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light would be proved and explained.”
“Right. In order for the rising water in an ocean wave to go up, the falling water has to come down and push it. That means, in order for the wave in the space lattice to push an object along, the pressure of the universe has to be able to push the lattice back together after the object passes. There is a limit to how fast this can happen. It’s the same as the speed of light.”
“Isn’t this what the Theory of Relativity predicted?”
“No. The Theory of Relativity doesn’t say objects can’t go faster than the speed of light. It just says objects moving faster would appear to be heavier. Once they reach the speed of light, they APPEAR to be infinitely heavy. So, using the equation F=ma, there would be no way we could get them past the speed of light. But remember, the Theory of Relativity is based on appearances. The particles could actually be going much faster than the speed of light because they could be accelerated in stages by a string of rockets, each moving close to the speed of light away from each other.
Lattice Theory has a different prediction. It predicts that if we tried to get particles to move at the speed of light, there would be an absolute limit. The mechanism that creates the force would be fighting the whole universe to bend the space lattice and the lattice would be limited to how fast it could recover. So, theoretically, the speed of light is a real speed limit for Lattice theory. “
“What about other inertial events? Like billiard balls rebounding?”
“That’s OK as well. As long as things are moving slow, the lattice will bend appropriately and make things work out. Of course, the other question is what happens to subatomic particles in accelerators that we know are moving near the speed of light when we smash them together.
In order to accelerate such a particle, we typically use strong, moving magnetic fields. The magnetic field distorts the lattice causing the particle to move. This now becomes a complex situation. In order to move, the Aa’s in a particle or around the particle have to click in and out of their normal arrangement. As space is bent by the high magnetic fields, both the geometry of the particle and the geometry of the space it is trying to move through get weird. If this leads to making the motion harder, we will attribute that to a higher mass. This could easily be the case.”
“OK. I can agree with Einstein’s model for mass increase. But it doesn’t have to decrease length at the same time or certainly not change time the way Relativity describes.”
“Right. I think we have to look at all of these parameters independently. But without establishing some basic truth about the physics of the problem, we are just flapping our mathematics in the breeze. Let me keep going.
ATOMS are collections of particles, and therefore, collections of dislocations. The collection of dislocations moves as a group. In this case, the outer dislocations, which we call electrons, interact most strongly with the lattice and other atoms as the group moves through the lattice.”
"Interesting. Most of the stuff we know about atomic particles fits nicely into your theory. Good thing, right?”
“Ugh … yeah! It wouldn’t make sense to invent a theory that didn’t fit. But the interesting parts for me are the things where it doesn’t fit, but the enduring questions are answered.
Electromagnetic radiation dualism - classical and new concept
For example, the phenomenon we refer to as the ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE, is NOT one continuum like we now believe. It is actually at least two distinct phenomenon: photons and electromagnetic waves.
PHOTONS are single defects that propagate through the lattice. Photons are produced when part of the mass of a basic sub-atomic particle, which is just a missing Aa, FILLS IN. When that happens, an Aa has to come from an adjacent part of the lattice to do the ‘filling in’. But that just creates another defect in the lattice. That causes another Aa to fill the new defect in, opening up another defect further along. This moving defect is what we call a PHOTON.
“So, you’re saying a photon is a hole moving through the lattice?”
“Right. It’s just the smallest possible defect – the smallest possible form of mass – moving through the lattice. The photon continues to move, passing through the lattice until the right conditions occur to trap the defect into another particle. At that time, the photon property disappears. But notice, mass is always added to the capturing particle because of adding another dislocation. And this is what distinguishes a photon from an electromagnetic wave. Photons, have the ability to alter particle structure and turn into mass. Electromagnetic waves are just vibrations in the lattice which don’t cause Aa’s to change positions.
“And what causes the defect to keep moving?”
“Well, what causes the defect in the mass to fill in to begin with? I think, essentially, that a particular wave motion is set up in the lattice due to the motion of other particles or photons. That pulls the particle apart, spreading out the area where the Aa is missing. That allows a neighboring Aa from the lattice to come in. So, the answer is, it is a wave motion in the lattice which both starts and continues photon motion. But remember, the wave motion is essentially a pulse. It does not have a classical wavelength because it does not have multiple peaks and valleys. Of course, there are math tools that relate pulse shapes to wavelength properties. But they are only calculation tools.
A photon’s wave related nature is only expressed when it interacts with matter. This is consistent with some of the concepts of quantum mechanics. The propagating defect has the geometry of a particle because it is a section of lattice with a missing Aa. It thereby exhibits particle like properties. It will follow the lattice gravitational shape and thereby follows the General Theory of Relativity. But the photon also has the properties of a wave pulse, because that pulse is what is moving the dislocation through the lattice. This explains how the photon can have both mass and wave properties. It also explains why a photon can not exist at rest. This is because the wave component can’t exist at rest. It also explains why the photon always creates mass when it does stop. That is because it always adds an additional defect to an existing particle. The dislocation propagates through the lattice until it interacts with other particles. But it propagates without spreading and without 1/r2 loss because it is confined to the geometry of a single defect.”
“I can’t believe this. You’re on a roll. Keep going. How do you account for the fact that photons can have such a wide range of energy?”
“The energy depends on the energy in the wave motion that causes the photon to start and propagate. But also notice, the energy traveling with the defect, is not quantized! It can have any level. But we mostly see levels related to the finite number of dislocation arrangements that Aa’s can take as they form particles.
I also think ALL individual photons are polarized by the pulse of the wave propelling them. We only see complex polarizations like circular polarization in groups of photons.”
Conservation of mass and energy
"This also describes, fundamentally, how mass and energy convert into one another.”
“ Right. CONSERVATION OF MASS and ENERGY are retained. Energy is the amplitude of the lattice wave as a dislocation moves through the lattice. Mass is a dislocated Aa. Mass converts to energy when a dislocation moves out of a particle. The amount of energy related to this event depends on the configuration of the missing Aa in the particle. The energy converts back to mass when a dislocation, moving as a photon, comes to ‘rest’ in a particle. To be captured, the energy of the dislocation must be just right for the structure that it encounters to capture it. If it isn’t right, it will bounce off or go right through. Only allowed forms of dislocations can become stable masses.”
"You weren’t kidding, were you. This theory really does unfold a lot of new ways of thinking. But I’m amazed at how simple the new ways explain how things happen.”
Electromagnetic waves – gravity waves
“ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES are very different. They are periodic VIBRATIONS in the lattice that are not strong enough to cause dislocations to change position in the lattice. They include transverse and torsional vibrations which are the electrical components of the wave, and axial vibrations in the direction of motion which are the magnetic component of the wave. The energy in these vibrations spread geometrically, are subject to 1/r2 loss, and can dissipate to zero amplitude without a quantization limit. Electromagnetic waves have traditional wave properties like the ones we see with sound waves. The lattice is the aether that has been believed throughout the ages. Electromagnetic waves will also bend in space as they follow the lattice structure which may be deformed by the presence of mass.”
“Hmmm. So, you’re saying that the currently accepted principle that electromagnetic waves and photons are the same thing is not right?”
“Correct. I think they are two different properties. And to confuse things further, the frequency range that each has overlaps. It’s like sound waves. Sound waves can occur into the megacycle range; radio waves can have frequencies well below human hearing. So the frequency of electromagnetic waves can sometimes be higher than the pulse energy related to a moving dislocation.”
“This concept of electromagnetic waves would also explain the cosmic microwave background. It would also suggest that radio waves travel about the same speed as photons.”
“Right. The passage of any vibration through the lattice produces bending in the lattice that is restored by the pressure in the lattice. The higher the energy of a radio wave, the larger the associated bending in the lattice as the wave passes. The passing vibration also follows the warping in space, thereby exhibiting relativistic mass properties. And since gravity is also a bending of the lattice, the motion of a mass should also produce transverse waves which move at the same speed as radio waves. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes gravity waves from radio waves is the way they distort the lattice.
Thermal radiation is a form of electromagnetic wave. It is NOT a photon. Ultraviolet visible light may mark a crossover energy point: electromagnetic waves generally have lower energy; photons generally have higher energy. But there may be a very broad band of overlap as well. Thermal radiation can carry vibrational energy away from a hot mass, but it CANNOT remove mass. The removed energy lowers the temperature. Thermal radiation can heat an object, but it CANNOT add mass to an object.
“And what about the inter relationship of electricity and magnetism that we call electromagnetism?”
“I think the analogy still holds. If a radio wave is launched, like a wave in a rope, it has a particular plane in space for what we call the electrical component of the wave. This is called the polarization angle of the wave. In the lattice, the Aa’s above and below the wave, in this plane, get compressed and expanded in a straight line in an equal and OPPOSITE way at one instance in time. That is, when one side is being compressed, the other side is being expanded. But the Aa’s perpendicular to that get bent like the flapping wings of a bird. They also expand or compress on both sides of the wave, but the compression or expansion is the SAME on both sides.
For this wave, the lattice is also expanded and contracted axially along the direction of motion. Again, this expansion and contraction occur at the same time both in front and in back of the wave.
“So, how would you explain magnetism?”
“Good question. A radio wave is a transverse vibration introduced into the lattice. But the lattice of space isn’t completely like a fluid. It has more structure; more like a solid. So a magnetic field might be a SHEAR phenomenon in the lattice. That is, to cause a magnetic field, the lattice just needs to be bent along a straight line. An example, using a fish net, might be just grabbing a part of the net and pulling on it. A magnetic field does not necessarily have to move like a wave. The shearing of the lattice just bends the Aa structure. The shearing causes the rest of the lattice to bend like the boughs on a Christmas tree. So, unlike the electrical component of a wave, the magnetic shearing pulls the Aa’s all around it in at the same time. This also gives the magnetic field a direction with north and south ends.”
“Wouldn’t this affect all matter in general? Wouldn’t it look just like gravity?”
“Maybe not if the distortion of the Aa’s stay parallel. Remember, what causes gravity is that the missing Aa’s cause the lattice around it to bend in to a point location. Magnetics bends the Aa’s in toward a line. And the line can loop around through space and close on itself.
Another thing that occurred to me was that there is some relationship between the magnetic field and inductance that is just as profound as Einstein’s observation that force and gravity are related. The inductance describes how fast a field can build up based on voltage. Some basic construct of space limits this. If the space lattice supplies that construct, I bet if we start doing the math, we’ll find the basic connection between gravity and electromagnetics. The electric field is the same. Capacitance tells how fast a field grows based on the current. But I haven’t figured out the details yet.” “
“Hey, Nanook! Give yourself a break. It’s not everyday a Boy Scout figures out the entire complexity of the universe in one night of lost sleep!”
“Yeah. Right. But I’m telling you, it was a REALLY LONG NIGHT!”
“Hey, some aliens just abducted you and flew you around at the speed of light. NO SWEAT!”
Which makes me think, you haven’t ask me about electrical charge yet. That was a real puzzle. My best guess is that the field of an electrical charge is just two magnetic fields stuck together. That is, if you take two Christmas trees and put them together head-to-head, you get a plus charge. If you put them together tail-to-tail, you get a negative charge.”
“Again, Nanook, give yourself a break! Maybe you haven’t worked out all the details here. What amazes me is that the lattice idea has enough different ways of arranging things, or what engineers call ‘degrees of freedom’ to explain most of the different properties that we have been able to measure. AND, at the same time, the lattice provides a basis to unify all of these properties. Have you thought any about the concept of time in relation to the lattice?”
“Sure. I think there is actually no such thing as TIME. It’s like a vacuum. It’s a convenient mathematical tool, but has no substance of its own. But there is something that can act as a regulator of the speed of motions we observe. That is, time could be considered as the relaxation constant of the lattice. Things move in a repeatable and predictable way because the lattice is mostly uniform. I say mostly, because distortions like those that caused the big bang would have changed the size of the lattice, speeding things up or slowing them down. But the response of the lattice is surely not dependent on the observer for any reasonable motions of objects.”
“And even in Black Holes, most of the activity is related to dislocations moving around, not to changes in the fundamental spacing of the Aa’s in the lattice, right?”
The Arrow of time
“Right. And thinking about how Lattice Theory explains time, I had another thought. The relaxation of the space lattice also describes the concept we know as the ‘ARROW OF TIME’. Philosophers and scientists have questioned why does time always appear to move forward?”
“Interesting. Many equations of physics don’t require that. Many interactions would work just as well if run in reverse. For example, light would follow the same path going backward as it does coming forward.”
“Correct. Finally, Lattice Theory explains this. The critical factor is that energy at levels lower than photons dissipates following a 1/r2 loss. So any process that exchanges energy at a low level can never be run in reverse. There is no way to create a starting pattern where energy will start at a low level and come together in a stable form at a high level. Heat, for example, always flows away from higher temperatures to lower temperatures.”
“Whoa! What about a magnifying glass?”
“That’s what most people would guess. But it’s misleading. Yes, the temperature is higher where the light is focused, but the total energy that can be accumulated at the focus point is always lower than the energy that was used to create the light going into the lens in the first place. You forgot to consider how much is thrown away creating and focusing the light in the first place. And second, as soon as the spot under the lens is heated, it will cool down.”
“Ah! Right. I see. So this is the basis for the second law of thermodynamics: that, overall, energy is always lost in processes.”
“Correct. But now I’m being more precise and saying the second law only applies to low energy processes. It doesn’t apply to the conversion of mass into energy. And note, this is not just an equation. This is an explanation! An example would be to watch a boat in a lake move through calm waters. A very simple straight line motion of the boat creates a very complex pattern of waves. If you made a movie of it, you could run it backwards. But in real life, it isn’t possible to set up the same wave pattern and have it come together, disappear and propel the boat backwards.
Someone might think that, theoretically, you might pick some point in time to define the wave pattern of the lake. Then just set every molecule in the lake into motion, precisely setting its position and speed to match the pattern but have the molecules going in the opposite direction. The problem is, it wouldn’t work. Each section of the wave, from that point in time, would spread out rather than focus back to a point. The reason is how molecules respond to pressure. The impact of the moving boat creates an area of high pressure. So the molecules expand outward. If the wave pattern is created and set into motion in reverse, each molecule would then respond to it’s current pressure situation. For the movie to run backward in real life, the molecules would have to move from low pressure to high pressure. Lattice Theory explains that the universe doesn’t allow that.
The universe essentially has a choice between two approaches. One is allowing very simple things like a boat moving in a straight line to create complex results; the second is to set up a very complex arrangements of things which over time combine to produce very simple results. Lattice Theory essentially says the universe takes the first approach. It is, in fact, based on the utmost simplicity – the Aa. The universe then essentially becomes a giant analog computer which calculates how simple events generate complex patterns.”
“But wouldn’t that mean that the universe eventually just cools off? And how do we explain how it got started in a hot mode? We still need something like the Big Bang, right?”
“Sure. But I’ve explained that. The Big Bang is caused by universal Aa quakes. The quakes cause dislocations to form. And Black Holes hold the secret to pulling dislocations back together and turning them back into a pure Aa lattice.”
“This is an uncanny version of the Buddhist model of the universe. According to them, space was quiet. Then a disturbance occurred. The process of the universe is to let all the disturbance settle down. In some forms of their view, the whole process is cyclic and will happen over and over.”
“Nothing I’ve thought about disagrees with that.
This raises an important issue about a physics parameter called the cosmological constant; but more specifically about something called RED SHIFT. Edwin Hubble made measurements on distant galaxies. He showed that the farther away stars were, the more their color was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.”
“Sure. It is well known that wave frequencies shift when the source and receiver move with respect to each other. This is called Doppler shift. So Hubble concluded that the universe was expanding because the farther objects were from the earth, the faster they were going away from us.”
“Right. But then the astronomers started using this idea backwards. They measured how much the color of specific star types shifted toward the red and used Hubble’s data to figure out how far away they were. The problem with this is, if Hubble’s explanation was wrong, then the shape of the universe is not what they calculate. And if the shape is wrong, then calculations about the effect of gravity will be wrong.
I believe the space lattice is not totally lossless. Since, in the lattice, a photon is a pulse, not a train of waves, it can lose energy as it moves through the lattice. So, a photon emitted from a star with an energy equivalent to one color of light can lose energy and apparently shift color as it travels. That can’t happen with periodic waves which have to conserve wave count.”
“So, you’re saying the expansion of the universe may not be what the current theory expects?”
“Right. I’m not saying there isn’t some expansion. There probably is. Mass was thrown out with a wide range of speeds as the original void collapsed. The faster ones will be farther away from the center, and from each other by now. But all of the Red Shift doesn’t have to come from that speed.
And my Red Shift concept leads directly to another explanation for the microwave background. As light and mass move through the space lattice and lose energy to it, the lattice vibrates. That’s the microwave background. Nothing more complicated than that.”
“OK. Now my head is spinning. Let’s come back to more practical things. Have you thought about how Lattice Theory would apply to light going through objects?”
“Yes. You mean, does Lattice Theory explain why light slows down as it passes through things like water and glass? This is something called REFRACTIVE INDEX. Lattice theory has a simple explanation for this. The space lattice fills the volume between the fundamental particles in the atom and between atoms. The structure of the lattice has order to it, but is distorted by any mass that is present. The more dislocations that are collected in one place, the more the lattice has to conform to them. The increased disorder of the lattice requires photons to take circuitous paths and changes the fundamental dynamics of the lattice. A longer path to travel and reduced elasticity of the lattice decrease the overall propagation speed through the material. This also explains how photons can ‘magically’ resume their speed as they emerge from matter. They just enter a more streamlined lattice again.”
Michelson Morley - 2
“Ah ha! And this brings us back to what led us down this tangent to begin with: the Michelson-Morley experiment.”
“Right. Einstein’s theory, The Special Theory of Relativity, is NOT an explanation of reality, just as Einstein said. It is just an academic study of how weird the universe would have to get if we started with the assumption that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Light, according to Lattice theory, propagates in a very Newtonian way. The General Theory of Relativity, which is really a theory of gravity, IS supported by the Lattice theory. AND, the gravitational field is now physically explained as well. Einstein’s thought that mass could be ‘knots’ in the fabric of space is also pretty well supported. But the analogy of knots in a net is poor because knots don’t move. Using an analogy with dislocations makes it easier to envision motion.”
“And what about Michelson – Morley?”
“Michelson had no basis to assume that the aether was moving at the same speed as the sun. If there were an aether, it would more likely be moving at the speed of the center of the universe – the place where the Big Bang was supposed to have happened. Therefore, the speed of the earth through this aether more likely would be dictated by the speed of the Milky Way galaxy in the universe, which we are in. That would most likely be a very high speed, much higher than the speed of the earth around the sun. We surely don’t measure that.
So, what other explanation could there be? It could be Dayton Miller’s answer: the earth somehow traps the aether. If that is so, then Michelson could actually have been right about the sun as well. That is, maybe it’s possible that any VERY LARGE accumulation of mass, like a planet or the sun, can trap the aether close to it. This actually does fit pretty well with my lattice theory.
The space lattice is the aether. When there is empty space, the lattice has a uniform, regular structure. When there is mass involved, it means that parts of the structure are missing. That bends space. The bending of space produces gravity. This is identical to Einstein’s General Theory.
Defects moving through the space lattice are mass. But the lattice is also affected by the defects. So the Milky Way galaxy, because it has so much mass, traps a lot of lattice. Our sun, because it has so much mass, also traps a lot of lattice. The earth, likewise, has enough mass to trap lattice. The lattice essentially forms a cocoon which moves along with the earth like a train traps air around an open cab. But at some distance from the earth, the lattice has to transition to a larger cocoon around the sun. There evidently is still a small draft near the planet, which is the 12% to 30% we are measuring. This velocity would become higher the farther we got from the earth’s surface. This is consistent with what Miller measured.”
Radiation belts around the earth
“I’ve got a question. If the lattice moves slower in some places than others, there has to be a zone where it’s torn apart, like the wake of air around a train. Shouldn’t that cause Aa’s to shift in and out of position? Wouldn’t that cause some kind of radiation?”
“I did think about that and did some research on it. It led me to the radiation belts around the earth and the radiation that causes the aurora. What I found out was that the standard explanation, that the belts are due to the solar wind, don’t match the estimates or direct measurements of the solar wind. The articles said there had to be another cause, which was still unknown. So, this might answer your question.”
“Amazing. You sure have done a lot of research on this. Has anyone else explored this issue?”
“Sure, a lot of people. One of the biggest challenges to the Special Theory has been the observation by James Bradley in 1729 of the aberration of starlight. As I said, the earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour in its orbit. This actually causes the angle at which telescopes are pointed at the stars to change throughout the year. You understand this right? It’s like a person in the rain with an umbrella. If they stand still, the rain falls straight down. So they point the umbrella straight up. But if they run, they have to tilt their umbrella in the direction they are running because the rain appears to be coming toward them.”
"I don’t know what planet you come from. In Alaska, rain NEVER comes straight down.”
“OK. But you know what I mean. So during one part of the orbit, the earth is heading, say, toward the constellation Orion. Earth telescopes have to be tilted slightly in that direction. But 6 months later, the earth is heading away from Orion. So the telescopes have to be tilted slightly in the opposite direction. This variation from vertical can be very precisely measured. It’s 20.5 arc seconds. The problem is, that doesn’t match what the Theory of Relativity would predict. If the speed of light is only based on the observer, there should be no shift in angle. In order for the angle to change in relation to the orbiting speed of the earth, the speed of the earth has to add to the apparent speed of light. But if the speed of light has to appear constant to earth observers, the component of speed introduced by the motion of the earth would have to be zero, which would mean the angle of variation would have to be zero. It’s a very clear contradiction that astrophysicists just refuse to address.
There were many other experiments run to explore this as well: Fizeau filled his telescopes with water; Fresnel used high speed moving glass in his interferometers; others had tables with high speed water columns that the light had to go through. They all showed discrepancies with both a free aether model AND the Special Theory of Relativity. Still the scientists are in denial. But all of the results can be explained with Lattice theory.”