Entropy in the Universe

A common criticism of the eternal universe is that such a universe will suffer heat death trough entropy. All useful energy will at some point be spent, leaving the universe with nothing but lumps of cold matter, incapable of doing anything.

From experience, we know that all but the simplest of processes are irreversible. Once a log of wood has been burned in a fire, it cannot be put back together again. Fuel spent to drive a car from one place to another is lost in the process. The list of irreversible processes is endless.

There is an inherent tendency of matter to spend useful energy in an irreversible manner, and proponents of the eternal universe need to address this problem.

One way around the entropy problem is to give matter itself a life cycle.

If matter is something with a limited lifespan, we have a way around the problem.

In defense of such a position, we have Halton Arp's intrinsic red-shift and his ideas regarding matter and mass condensation.

Galaxy with a dying region giving birth to a quasar, which matures into a galaxy

We can imagine matter as something born from radiation. Something that becomes gradually more heavy over time until it collapses back into radiation.

With no energy ever lost due to the self contained nature of the universe, we have a perfect cycle. There is no dead end, only endless cycles of birth, growth and death.

Entropy becomes a non-issue as far as the universe is concerned because all its processes are ultimately reversible through death and re-birth of matter.

Energy on Mercury

Time goes a little faster on Mercury than it does on Earth. This is why Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little quicker than predicted by Newton.

Conventional theory attributes this difference in time to a curvature of space-time. The alternative laid out in my book is to attribute this to a difference in the composition of the aether.

The aether in the region close to the Sun is richer in photons and poorer in neutrinos than what is the case farther away from the Sun. This is due to gravity, which pulls zero-point photons towards the Sun at the expense of neutrinos.

The size of electrons and protons depend in turn on the abundance of neutrinos in the aether.

With fewer neutrinos close to the Sun than farther away, electrons and protons end up correspondingly smaller in size close to the Sun than farther away.

The smaller size of electrons and protons translates into smaller clocks, and therefore faster time.

Photon crossing an electron on Earth, compared to crossing it on Mercury

It takes a photon more time to cross an electron on Earth than it takes a photon to cross an electron on Mercury. As a consequence, energy distribution takes more time on Earth than on Mercury. All processes are therefore slower on Earth than on Mercury, which by definition means that time itself is slower on Earth than Mercury.

An interesting consequence of this is that energy, which is also related to the size of subatomic particles, must be smaller on Mercury than Earth.

Let us imagine a carefully designed explosive with enough energy to send a 1 kilogram projectile through space at a speed of 1 kilometer per second.

We test this on Earth, and we see that it is spot on. There is never a deviation. It is a perfect explosive.

We take this explosive to Mercury and try it out there. What happens?

Energy is stored as size in subatomic particles. These particles are reduced in size due the difference in composition of the aether. When the explosive fires, there is less energy to draw on.

We may from this expect the projectile to come out slower than was the case on Earth.

However, the size of subatomic particles in the projectile has also become smaller. This means that the projectile has less inertia.

Time, distance, energy and inertia are all related to the size of subatomic particles. Measured on Mercury, the explosive behaves exactly as it did on Earth.

It is only when viewed form Earth that we notice that things have changed. An observer on Earth, looking at the experiment on Mercury, using equipment on Earth for all measurements, will notice that time is faster, distances are shorter, inertia is less and energy is less.

None of this is detectable to the observer on Mercury. Using equipment on Mercury to make measurements, the energy in the explosive has not lost any of its qualities. It will still send the 1 kilogram projectile through space at a speed of 1 kilometer per second.

The Energy Puzzle

Energy is the capacity to do work, and by work, we mean moving things around.

When I pick up a wood block from the floor, I do work in order to put it on a shelf. Energy is transferred from me to the block.

If the block should fall from the shelf and onto a ball on the ground, energy will be transferred to the ball by the exact amount that the block gives to it.

All of this is easy to understand. Except, there's a step that is not fully accounted for. The block falling from the shelf down to the ball involves acceleration. Yet, there's no change in the block's energy.

There is no transfer of energy from the block to its environment before it hits the ball and the ground. There is a conversion of energy from potential to kinetic. But this conversion is merely a matter of Newtonian accounting.

We can use Newton's equation to calculate the exact speed that the block hits the ball, and the exact amount of energy that is transferred from the block to the ball through that interaction. But we cannot use Newton's equations to explain why the block is falling.

Whichever way we look at this, we come to the conclusion that there is acceleration without any overall change in energy.

Gravity accelerates things without adding or subtracting energy.

Looking into the electric force and the magnetic force, we discover that they too accelerate things without adding or subtracting energy. Any change in energy communicated through the electric or magnetic force is supplied from outside, as explained in the two chapters on motors and generators and radio transmission.

All three filed forces are accelerations of various kinds, communicated through high and low pressure areas in the aether. These pressure areas are not like high and low pressures in weather systems. They do not carry any weight or energy.

An electron in an aether of zero-point particles

High and low pressure areas in the aether are imbalances that nature inherently seeks to correct.

This is a fundamental attribute of nature, on par with entropy and the constant speed of light.

The block falling to the ground is merely responding to an inherent tendency towards equilibrium in the aether. The same is true for charged particles accelerating in an electric field, or magnetic materials responding to a magnetic field. There is acceleration with no change in energy, all due to various imbalances in the aether.

Mass-Energy Equivalence

The equation E = mc², made famous by Einstein, contains an important clue as to the true nature of  energy.

First thing to note is that the equation does not distinguish between different types of energy. It does not matter if the energy in question is kinetic or potential. All energies have the exact same effect on matter.

An increase in energy results in an increase in mass, regardless of energy type.

The natural conclusion to draw from this is that all energies, regardless of type, reside inside the particles that make up light and matter. If mass is a property of matter, and mass and energy is equivalent, then energy too must be a property of matter.

Next thing to note is the relationship to the speed of light, expressed by the constant c.

If inertial mass is a measure of time delay in energy distribution within particles, and time is a relationship between the speed of light and the size of particles, then there must be a relationship between energy, inertial mass and the speed of light.

This is exactly what the equation E = mc² is telling us.

Subatomic particles: neutrino, photon, electron, proton

Finally, if energy is stored as size of subatomic particles, so that an increase in energy is equivalent to an increase in size, then there is no mystery as to why an increase in energy will lead to more inertia.

The increased size of subatomic particles, due to an increase in energy, results in more time required for further increase in energy to take place.

The principle of mass-energy equivalence, as expressed by the equation E = mc², is fully compatible with the idea that energy is stored as size in subatomic particles.

Light, Gravity and Energy

The strict particle model proposed in my book has energy stored as size of subatomic particles. All energies, regardless of type, are stored as size.

When lifting a wood block from the floor up to a shelf, the size of subatomic particles in the block increase by a tiny bit. The same is true when throwing the block through the air. However, dropping the block results in no change in size, because the sum of potential and kinetic energy remains unchanged during the fall. There is no change in the total energy of the block before it hits the ground.

An alternative to this model is to have potential energy stored in the field between the block and the ground, and kinetic energy stored as motion. Lifting the block from the floor will in this model put potential energy into the field. Dropping the block will result in a transfer of potential energy stored in the field to kinetic energy in the block, with gravity facilitating this transfer.

The problem with such a field theory is that it is all pure math, with no simple mechanism to explain it.

However, the advantage with a field theory is that once we accept the idea of energy stored in a field, we have a ready supply of energy to draw on whenever needed.

This comes in handy when we are confronted with such phenomena as gravitational red-shift.

When light travels away from a massive body, it looses energy. When it travels towards a massive body, it gains energy. This is experimentally confirmed, and requires an explanation.

Photons passing by, moving towards and moving away from a massive body

Using a field theory, we can simply say that photons give up energy to the field when they travel  away from massive bodies, and that they absorb energy from the field when they travel towards such bodies.

However, a strict particle model cannot use such an explanation, because no energy is stored outside of particles. When particles gain energy, other particles must loose energy. There has to be interaction between particles.

The way to solve this problem, using a strict particle model, is to invoke the aether.

When we combine the aether with the idea that a pilot wave accompanies every photon, we can imagine a mechanism for energy transfer between the aether and visible light.

Zero-point photons, abundantly available in the aether, readily soak up any excess energy of an outgoing visible photon. The red-shift of outgoing photons are facilitated by a corresponding blue-shift of incoming zero-point photons.

Conversely, blue-shift of incoming visible light is facilitated by the red-shift of outgoing zero-point photons.

Note that there is no need for any direct contact between the photons for the energy transfers to happen. As long as the pilot waves associated with each photon brush against each other, energy can be transferred.

Note also that this explanation has as a consequence that the aether is somewhat "hotter" close to massive bodies than farther away. The stronger the gravitational field, the more blue-shifted is the aether close to the surface of the body in question.

Force, Inertia and Energy

Newton introduced several concepts into physics in order to label the various parts of his equations. He did so without giving any specifics as to their fundamental nature. The labels were all defined in terms of each other.

Some of the labels are easy to understand in terms of what we can actually see, others less so.

In the case of Newton's second law of motion, Newton stated that force is mass times acceleration:

F = m*a

While acceleration is easy to picture and imagine, force and mass are not.

Mass is not matter, but an attribute of matter that may refer to inertia or gravity, depending on context.

Force is an even more ambiguous term. It can mean anything from tension and pressure to something that does work.

By bundling the concept of work up with pressures and tension, all sorts of confusions can arise, so I like to restrict my use of the word force in much the same way I limit my use of the word mass.

Ideally, the word force should only be used when there is a transfer of energy from one object to another. In all other cases, pressure and tension should be used.

What would follow from such a labeling is that the magnetic, electrical and gravitational forces would be re-labeled as pressures, because none of these forces do any actual transferring of energy.

To illustrate this, we can take the case of a wood block laying on the floor.

If I pick the block up, it is I who transfer some of my energy to the block. Gravity is merely providing a low pressure environment.

When I put the block onto a shelf, I have given the block some of my energy. This energy is stored in the block.

If the block slides off the shelf, gravity pulls it to the floor. However, gravity does not add any energy to the block. The potential energy in the block is merely converted to kinetic energy.

It is only when the block hits the floor that energy is transferred from the block to its environment. The energy that I gave the block when I put it into its place in the shelf is transferred to the floor, mostly in the form of heat.

This same logic can be used to the magnetic force and electric force as well. They do not add or subtract energy in a system. The energy is always applied mechanically to the system, as explained in the chapter on motors and generators.

In the case of inertial matter, we always start by applying pressure in order to change an object's energy. If we are unable to change its energy, pressure is all we provide. It is only when the inert body starts to accelerate that force is provided. This is in fact what the equation F = m*a states. Without acceleration, there is no force.

Big ship, big inertia

By Wmeinhart - Foto wurde mit einem Panoramaprogramm aus drei Fotos zusammengesetzt, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=124261

What should be noted is that if we apply force over time, for an accelerating body, and we express this mathematically, we end up with the formula for kinetic energy.

If we apply force over distance inside a force field, we get potential energy.

This is only true if the word force is used to mean Newton's second law of motion. As we have seen, tensions and pressures do not facilitate energy transfers. They do not do any work.

By restricting our use of the word force to Newton's second law of motion, we avoid a lot of confusion related to energy and energy transfers.

Sunspot Cycles

Ever since Galileo's time, we have monitored the Sun closely. One thing that has been carefully registered is the number of sunspots visible at any given time.

What has been noted is that the number of sunspots vary in cycles of 10.8 years, and that climate and geology on our planet appear to be related to this cycle.

Cold periods in the past have coincided with periods of low sunspot counts. Volcanic activity and earthquakes have tended to pick up during these same periods.

We are currently seeing few sunspots, and true to form, we are seeing a lot of volcanoes blow their tops. There has also been some unusual weather registered. Many cold records have been broken.

Pāhoehoe lava flow on Hawaii

By Brocken Inaglory - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2764846

There is nothing controversial about this. It is well known that low sunspot counts coincide with reduced electromagnetic activity on our Sun. The reduced electromagnetic activity allows for more cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere and crust of our planet. Increased cloud cover and geological activity follow as a result.

The conventional interpretation of this is that our Sun has an internal dynamo that happens to oscillate at 10.8 years cycles. There is nothing interesting going on. There is no relationship to anything else. Any relationship that there might be is purely coincidental.

On the other hand, there are those who point out that the 10.8 years cycle is a good match for the combined orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.

Jupiter and Saturn lined up on the same side of the Sun, together with Mars, on March 7 this year. There will be a great conjunction in which Jupiter and Saturn line up almost perfectly with each other in 2020. That is the year the current sunspot cycle is expected to be at its minimum.

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24

By David Hathaway, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28557779

What is a little concerning is the fact that the last couple of sunspot cycles have shown a clear downward trend in overall activity. This happened before the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the little ice age.

We are currently entering a period where all the big planets are located at the same side of the Sun. Last time this happened, was during the Maunder Minimum.

It remains to be seen if we are entering a prolonged period of low sunspot activity, and if this will affect climate and geology as much as last time.

The prediction by those who believe that planetary alignments have something to do with it, is that we are in for another little ice age.

Those who believe that planets have nothing to do with sunspot activity are not willing to make any such prediction. They do not have anything in their models to make this kind of predictions. It is all pure coincidence, and no predictions can be made beyond the fact that things oscillate over a 10.8 years average.