How the Cosmos Works

 

The cosmos is finite, but the universe in which our cosmos resides is infinite.

The cosmos is a finite, orderly, and tangible system created by God, at the instant of what is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang". Who knows? There may be an infinite number of cosmoses in the universe. Since God is infinite, the number of his material creations may also be infinite. The cosmos we live in, however, is composed of a finite total mass, made up of an infinite number of particles decreasing in size until the smallest becomes infinitely small in mass. At some point these particles are too small to be measured. It is understandable why we mistakenly see these moving particles as something altogether different than matter, namely, "energy" or "dark energy" or cosmic rays or heat energy. Actually, energy is nothing more than particles of matter in motion.

It is in the Spirit of God that we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17: 28) However, there will never be a scientific proof for the existence of God, or for his having created the cosmos. If the cosmos is part of something bigger, then distances between cosmoses, in the universe, would be too great for us to physically explore, so this question will never be answered by use of the scientific process either. In this natural state, as mere biological human beings, we will never acquire the ability, through science, to observe another big bang or travel to another cosmos. However, there are some incredible events that we can be reasonably sure of predicting through our present scientific way of thinking. One such event is the coming destruction of our planet. Another is the death of our sun. Both these events are easily ascertained within the present scientific paradigm. However, there are other phenomena which science has the ability to understand but cannot understand by using the present paradigm (way of thinking).

The following cosmic question is just one example of what I am talking about. The question is this. How does gravity really work? In recent years, we have collected enough scientific evidence to measure the force exerted by gravity almost everywhere but today's scientific community has absolutely no understanding of how gravity really works and we will never be able to understand how gravity works without a major paradigm shift in scientific thinking about how everything in our cosmos works. If not in my lifetime, this paradigm shift will eventually come, however, and it will change the way we look at the building blocks of our cosmos, through our scientific eyes, in a most profound way. With that shift in the way we visualize how all matter interacts with itself, we will be able to answer this question about how gravity works as well as many other questions which elude us today.

I choose to try to seek all the answers to every question through the understanding given to me by God's Holy Spirit. However, God and science can never be synchronized, but they can both be right. We just need to understand the unique perspectives of each. The bible approaches all truth from an all knowing position, while science deals with only material facts, starting at a point of total ignorance, then learning one workable hypothesis, as a prerequisite for learning another, and then another, each piece of knowledge building on the last, all reached many times by trial and error. Some times a collection of seemingly rock solid scientific facts can lead to numerous practical solutions in everyday life, giving the impression that we know more than we really do about the bigger picture and at the same time can seem to prove the word of God to be false. Our scientific approach, however, will eventually always suffer a breakdown. God's word is absolute truth and will never change. After each general scientific breakdown, comes an epiphany, then a paradigm shift, usually ushered in through great minds and a preponderance of the empirical evidence. Unlike the bible, science, itself, can not be anything other than agnostic. However, since it does not look at things from an all knowing perspective, it followings the ebbs and flows of collective human thought, no matter how rational or irrational that collective thought is at any one point in time. That collective thought must now go through a major paradigm shift to be able to understand how the cosmos really works on a grand scale. However, once humans make the leap to higher ground in that collective mental way of thinking, it will be easy for any school child to understand how gravity really works.

Having finished what I believe is this necessary preamble to my discussion of the main topic on how the universe works, lets now look at what the evidence is saying, strictly from a scientific standpoint. It is impossible to do this without letting go of some previous ways of thinking. In other words, forget the books we have read, forget the answers we have parroted back to our teacher in order to pass the test. Instead, Let's just look at the evidence for what I am saying. We can use Google as our fact finder. Simply let the preponderance of recently discovered evidence draw its own image in our minds and completely erase the old preconceived ideas programmed into our mind from a variety of sources. In short, we must let our mind experience a paradigm shift. We can facilitate this by reading a sentence I have written and then asking the following question. Is there evidence that supports what he is saying here? Does it make sense? If not, email me and give me your evidence to the contrary. 

Recent scientific data all points to the conclusion that the material foundation supporting the changing structure of the entire cosmos really is much easier to understand than present scientific thought is willing or able to accept. The voice of the evidence is deafening. However, no one seems to be listening. This always happens just before a paradigm shift takes place. What I am about to say is radically different, yet totally understandable by means of human reasoning alone. To date, I have found no one who can logically refute anything I am saying here.

The foundation of the next great paradigm shift in scientific thinking is the realization of the following. All material substance including what we call energy has mass, since it is affected by gravity. Therefore energy is nothing more than varying sizes of sub atomic particles of matter in motion.

How can I make a statement like this with such certainty? Here is how. The gravity produced by black holes attracts everything including all forms of what we now call energy. Therefore, what we previously considered to be a completely different entity, is now proven to possess the same major characteristic which defines all matter. That characteristic is gravitational attraction to other masses in space. We also know that everything called energy is moving. With these two observations, is it out of the realm of logical thinking to purpose that anything attracted by gravity has substance and therefore is also matter? Would it not also be logical to conclude that so called energy releases are nothing more than very tiny subatomic particles of matter in motion? If this is true, then every material phenomenon in the entire cosmos should become a proof or disproof of what I am hypothesizing here. Follow me down this road, with this thought in mind, and let's see where it leads.

Is it too preposterous to suppose that all particles are composed of smaller particles, which become so small, that they become unrecognizable as matter? If this is true, it would be very easy for science to label them as something totally different, such as light, or gamma rays, weak force, gravity, magnetic force, or maybe dark matter or dark energy. Yet, they could be nothing more than extremely small, and thus hard to detect particles of matter in motion. This very small particle theory, if true, could form the basis for a universal understanding of everything. It could explain how every observable phenomenon, in our cosmos, works. Ideas like dark matter, dark energy, anti matter, gravity, nuclear force, time, the speed limit of light and the formation of planets, stars, galaxies could possibly all be explained by this one universal theory.

All matter in our cosmos is now expanding outward, from a point of singularity and is propelled by an unknowable originating force, in all directions, from that point of singularity. This matter interacts with itself by following one of only three rules.

1. A particle or body in motion collides with another particle or body of matter in its path, which has a certain range of mass to its own mass.

2. A particle, or body in motion, continues in one direction, from its initial point of creation (singularity), on a trajectory influenced, to some degree, by every other particle created at that point of singularity (butterfly effect), following a path of least resistance. (Hawkins is correct in his determination that the initial big bang was not uniform in particle distribution. (If it where, I wouldn't be here and neither would you.)

3. A particle or body in motion enters into an orbit, with other particles or bodies, of a certain range in mass, trajectory and velocity to itself. 

Motion is stored in orbital states and so-called energy releases are caused by collisions which disrupt these peaceful orbits.

Two events are taking place at the same time within all bodies of matter in the cosmos. First, as a body in space is bombarded by very tiny subatomic particles, some particles (some so tiny they can't be detected) enter into orbits following rule 3. Others collide with particles in their path as they travel through this body in space causing other peaceful orbital states of particles within this body to be disrupted. Some of these very tiny disrupted particles are hurled out of their orbits and into the space outside the larger body in which they have resided, where their motion has been passively controlled, by their orbits. When this is done on a observable scale, it is usually referred to, as some type of "energy" release. 

This very small particle concept is the key to understanding how gravity works.

Seemingly discrete bodies in space are measurably and mutually attracted by a vague term we call gravity. (However, there are an infinite number of particles in our cosmos which are too small to be detected) Understanding this small particle concept, allows us to explain why the third rule of matter interaction, which is the tendency of bodies of matter to enter into orbits, is the key to understanding how gravity works. Particles, which are much smaller in mass than those in a cloud of electrons, continually escape a body and travel into the space beyond. As they travel outward, they obey one of the three rules already mentioned. Orbital opportunities are found, by some of these very tiny particles, as they enter into the interior of other bodies in space. With each new orbit created, a slight void is also created, which allows other particles to fall toward that void thus following a path of least resistance, and on and on it goes, creating the effect we call gravity. These very small particles escape a body in space at a rate which is inversely proportional to the mass of that body. As these very small particles leave a body in space and then enter into and travel through another body in space, they do one of three things. They either miss other particles associated with the body they are traveling through, or they collide with other particles in that body, or they enter into orbits around other particles inside that body. A relatively greater void is created by a more massive body in space, since it's greater mass provides more orbiting opportunities. It also does not allow its own particles to escape it's borders at as fast a rate as those escaping from a less massive body. The greater the difference in mass between two bodies in space, the greater the range of trajectory and velocity can be, and still have a successful orbit established. When the relative velocities and trajectories of the two bodies are within the proper range, then the smaller body will enter into an orbit around the larger. This interaction between two bodies in space happens on an infinitely smaller and smaller scale, where the gain or loss of mass to either body is too small to be measured. The orbiting phenomenon of particles allows matter to compress more efficiently in less space. However, there are fewer orbiting opportunities for these very small sub atomic particles, than there are collisions, until the larger mass approaches the density of a black hole. Never the less, there are still enough orbiting opportunities being created to continually cause a relative void to form in the direction of the larger body, which causes the smaller body to continually fall toward the larger body causing it to orbit around the larger body of a certain range in mass to itself. As I have said before, this happens on an infinite scale. Alignment of the molecules and atoms in a body can amplify this effect, (magnetic force) such as that seen in a steel magnet, but the principle is the same. This basic principle explains orbiting planets, stars, and also provides a basic understanding of how electromagnetism and nuclear bounding in the nucleus of atoms works. 

This phenomenon creates a relative weak force in matter, when dealing with masses up to the size of planets and stars. At these masses, there are many more opportunities for collisions, than for orbiting. These collisions are what eventually activate self sustaining nuclear chain reactions in bodies compressed by gravity into the critical mass necessary to create a star. At the same time, continual creation of orbital states (gravity) holds the star together, while the overwhelming number of collisions, happening at the same time, set it ablaze, igniting what science calls a self sustaining nuclear reaction, where very small particles are hurled back into space, in different forms of  so called radiation. (I do not have the mathematical calculations to prove what I am saying here, but perhaps some one out there can take on this task). Bodies in space the size of planets do not have the critical mass to ignite a nuclear reaction. Stars do.

Black holes are good examples of bodies, massive enough, to provide many more orbiting opportunities, relative to collisions.

Black holes provide such a large number of orbiting opportunities, relative to collisions, that the vacuum created between a black hole and any mass entering into its event horizon sucks apart everything down to the particle mass size of the building blocks of the black hole itself. This certainly changes the structure of matter beyond anything recognizable by us humans at this time. This restructuring includes an element's electron clouds, its protons, its neutrons and all "so called" energy emissions associated with the element. For example, as a bar of gold enters the event horizon, orbital states within its entire structure are ripped apart down to the mass of the fundamental building blocks of the black hole itself and then quickly assimilated into new orbits provided by the overwhelming number of new orbiting opportunities of the black hole. 

Outside the event horizon, matter is drawn, by the law of orbits toward the relative vacuum, created by a black hole, compressing matter into smaller and smaller spaces. However, orbiting opportunities are not found in the massive quantity of those located in the interior of a black hole. Collisions happen much more predominately. Nevertheless, enough orbital opportunities are found to cause matter to congeal into the observable phenomena of nebula, planets, stars and galaxies. Particle collisions in stars provide enough force in their collisions to allow the smashed particles to escape in the form of what science calls heat, light, x rays, gamma rays, etc. At the same time, stars are held together by the force created by the law of orbits. (gravity) Stars happen when matter accumulates enough mass to produce enough collisions to cause a nuclear chain reaction. However, stars are not massive enough to produce enough orbital opportunities to quench that same nuclear reaction, as does a black hole. Common sense tells us that all matter in the cosmos will eventually be incorporated into black holes. Eventually, all black holes will come together and lastly all orbital motion will wind down. Because of its enormous density, and thus its tremendous number of orbiting opportunities as a result, black holes cause all matter in the cosmos to fall toward the void they create. If there was only one black hole in the entire cosmos then all matter in the entire cosmos would start moving toward it. In this way, a black hole concentrates matter into a smaller and smaller space thus creating all the observable phenomena we are able to observe in the cosmos. Black holes create galaxies. So, yes there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. I wish I could do a better job of explaining this. Perhaps at some point in the future, some one will be born with enough common sense, and lack of herd mentality, to do a better job. Maybe it will be one of my great, great Grandchildren.

Chemical versus Atomic Reactions

Particle collisions create everything man calls energy from the fire burning in a fire place, to atomic reactions. When compounds are bombarded by enough of these very small undetectable sub atomic particles, to create self sustaining collisions, within the electron clouds, we have a chemical reaction. Peaceful orbital bounds between electron clouds are broken, and the chemical compound breaks up into more elemental compounds and elements, as the reaction continues. Chemical reaction become self sustaining, when enough collisions (critical mass) happen between the disturbed atomic particles in the clouds of electrons. Collisions created during the breakup of peaceful orbital states, among electron clouds are not massive enough to override the comparably overwhelming number of orbital states in the much larger mass of the nucleus of an atom. for this reason, in chemical reactions the fundamental nature of elements is not altered but that of compounds is. In a chemical reaction, nuclear bounds between protons and neutrons understandably remain in place. Again, the reason for this is because more massive nuclear bounds have many more orbital opportunities, which continues to hold the protons and neutrons together because the electrons are not massive enough to generate enough collision events to disturb the nucleus of an atom. However, both chemical and atomic reactions can be explained by what I like to call the law of orbits. A nuclear reaction simply requires much greater collision force to be exerted on the nuclei of atoms in order to break up the greater numbers of orbital states, which hold the nucleus together. However, the principle is the same for both phenomena. Once enough peaceful orbital states are destroyed, by bombarding the nucleus of atoms with enough force, a self sustaining atomic reaction will occur as more and more orbiting particles are turned into missiles, which collide on a scale large enough to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. Once it becomes self sustaining, there are many more orbital states to be turned into collisions, which release the much greater force observed in a nuclear reaction, compared to that in a chemical reaction. 

The law of orbits basically explains two major characteristics of matter.

The first characteristic it explains is the tendency of matter to congeal into larger and larger masses in space through the vacuum created by particles entering into orbital states. The second characteristic, which it explains, is the ability of matter to enter into self sustaining exothermic chemical or nuclear reactions, when a body is bombarded by a sufficient number of particles, of a certain range in mass, to the mass being bombarded so that peaceful orbits are disturbed.

The theory of the law of orbits is the unifying explanation for how everything in the universe works

This is a universal law that many scientists have spent their lives trying to discover. I believe the Holy Spirit quickened this information to my mind. I am a layman and have only one reason for publishing this information on the web. If it is true, I want God to get the credit for it. If it is false, then it is a product of my faulty imagination. I have no scientific reputation to protect. As a matter of fact, I welcome input from anyone, who is able to prove these ideas to be false. This information has been posted on the web and Facebook for well over five years now, and I have not had a single response. I find that very strange, don't you?

The mechanical theories I am purposing here for the behavior of all matter in the cosmos also explains why time slows down as a body speeds up.

Briefly, since matter is made up of smaller and smaller particles, at some point particles impacted by a body, traveling through space, are too small to initiate influential collisions or orbits within the body. Instead, they pass completely through a body traveling through space. However, these extremely small particles do exert drag on the much larger orbiting particles within the body causing them to slow down, as they pass through. The faster a body travels, the more of these small particles pass through. The internal clock of a body in space is set by velocities of orbiting particles. Increased velocity of a body causes increased drag on orbital states within that body, causing orbiting particles to slow, thus slowing time.

Short definition of gravity:
Gravity is the resulting force created, as an infinite number of smaller and smaller masses enter orbits with an infinite number of larger masses in space, which allows matter to become compacted into smaller and more dense proximity. At the same time, this creates a relative void in space, which causes the less massive of two bodies in space, to continually fall toward the more massive body in space. 

Written by: Wayne Wade
Seabrook, TX. 77586
wade@iam777.org

P. S.
I really struggle to convey what I am visualizing here, especially, where the edge of our cosmos borders the emptiness of space beyond. (The cosmos is an expanding sphere and all particles are spheres.)  The emptiness of space, beyond the cosmos, is a much more perfect vacuum (absence of matter), than any given space of equal volume within the cosmos. (We know it is not a perfect vacuum because our cosmos resides in it. To be a perfect vacuum, there could be nothing whatsoever residing in it.) This could seemingly explain why perpetual outward expansion is thought by some to be a given, and particles do flow from points of higher pressure to points of lower pressure, which on the surface seems to confirm the Steven Hawking belief, that the cosmos will eventually fly apart. However, this situation at the edge of the cosmos can be misleading. At the edge of the cosmos matter is being expelled from the entire spherical surface of the cosmos where more and more of those outbound particles are moving into the much greater emptiness of space beyond. At the same time these particles on the outward edge of the cosmos are continually being chased by particles behind them, which are expanding outward also. (I can visualize this but I find it hard to put into words.) Here, the leading edge particles of the cosmos find fewer and fewer opportunities to create orbits on the outbound sides. However, on the interior sides, the entire cosmos is expanding toward them, allowing many more orbits to be formed on the interior sides than the outbound sides. The force created during the initial big bang, is the only force propelling matter outward. At some point, the continual formation of orbital states by emitted particles on the side of a particle facing the direction of the initial point of singularity will create enough orbital states to cause the entire cosmos to slow its expansion and then start collapsing. Simply put, matter will eventually fold up because particles are attracted to the relatively greater void, created by the greater numbers of orbital opportunities (Which creates a greater vacuum) behind them, within the cosmos, than is in front of them in increasingly greater emptiness of space beyond the leading edge, where the cosmos meets the rest of the universe. As one can see, I desperately need the help of some one with a high level of mathematical skill to work with me on this theory. (Hbr. 1: 10-12) 

Other Interesting Facts

If the cosmos where half as massive, light would travel twice as fast.

It is theoretically possible to travel faster than the speed of light by using a engine with the density of a black hole to create a void in front of our space ship for it to continually fall into. Traveling near the speed of light would do crazy things like slow time way down. I don't want to go there now. Building a warp drive would not be nearly as hard as avoiding obstacles in your path within the cosmos. Speeds outside the cosmos could be many times the speed of light depending on the amount of fuel for thrust which could be carried onboard.

Wayne Wade
4-25-16
Wade@iam777.org
Web Address of This Document:
http://www.iam777.org/UniversalTheory.htm