Universe of Light: The Biblical Theory of Everything
Author: Cody Livengood
And God said. “Let there be light,” and there was light. – Genesis 1:3
If one and only one object or substance exists and all forms and operations are a consequence of its existence, what must it be? Energy. But what is energy exactly, and how does it act to create such variation in its effects? The claim presented herein is that light waves and energy are the same material and from it all effects can be derived as a product of its motion and density. In this manuscript, the terms energy, light, electricity, medium, material, and space (except absolute space) are used synonymously.
The contemporary theory is that each type of particle corresponds to its own field which permeates the universe, and when energy enters that field, it produces an excitation of that field, which is the particle. That means that there are at least eighteen separate fields. All particles being made of the same material, energy, brings into question the physical properties of such an intermediate substance. It is not well explained how exactly energy is physically connected to the various fields nor how it is able to pass between them.
To understand what might really be going on, first posit that there are only three spatial dimensions (the X, Y, and Z axes), which together constitute an intangible “absolute space” behind that which is tangible. Within that absolute space resides a material consisting entirely of interconnected waves. The waves and the medium they move through are the same entity. No other physical thing exists. Waves naturally travel toward the densest region in the medium. As the waves travel, the density of the medium changes relative to absolute space. So, this active change in density further bends the path of each successive wave. Not only is the path of a wave affected by motion in the medium, but the density of a wave can be affected as well. Also, the speed of light relative to the medium never changes, but relative to absolute space, the speed of light increases as the density of the medium decreases and vice versa.
Particle Creation and Wave-Particle Duality:
Particles, rather than being separated from the space around them, are the end result of waves traveling toward the densest regions in the medium. Energy is limited and cannot be created or destroyed. That energy makes up the medium which the waves travel through. Because energy is limited, their path is limited, and so waves cannot spiral inward forever. They only travel inward to the extent determined by the quantity of the medium in their location. The waves pass through the densest point and continue on. This creates a vortex of waves, which is the true form of a particle. All particles are part of the medium, and so there is no true vacuum between them. Particles being made of waves is the reason all matter is able to exhibit wave-like properties (i.e. a “wave-particle duality”), wherein individual particles, like photons and electrons, are able to exhibit fluid-like behaviors typically associated with groups of particles. This is particularly notable in the double-slit experiment, in which a single particle can be affected by its own wave and so interfere with its own path as it is passing through one of the two slits. The motion of particles, specifically their diffraction and interference pattern, is clearly directed by a wave, which is mostly produced by the particle itself.
General Relativity and Gravity:
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is often depicted as a grid of curved lines like a fabric with weights on it. Such warping is said to occur in a fourth spatial dimension; however, space only warps in three dimensions as the aforementioned material. Matter bends space because matter is bent space. Particles are knots in the fabric of space, so to speak. The reason mass and energy are equivalent (E = mc^2) is because an object’s mass is determined by the amount of energy (or medium) in it; so, in a way, mass and energy are more than simply equivalent, since they are actually measurements of the same material. Light is not massless. The varying density of the medium alters the path of the waves. This remains true even for waves that are passing through vortices, which results in the vortices (and, in turn, the objects they make up) having an overall tendency to travel toward the densest region in space. That is the cause of gravity. Gravity having an infinitely distant area of effect is due to all particles being physically connected to the medium that spans and warps the space between and within all things. In gravitational lensing, where light bends around massive objects similar to how light refracts through a drop of water, light passing through different densities of the medium works in a manner similar to lenses in cameras and telescopes. Gas and dust could be stripped out of a cluster of galaxies, and still the light passing through the cluster will be lensed, because most of the medium is likely not in the form of interstellar gas and dust, but constrained within stars and planets.
The Equivalence Principle:
In the case of gravity, vortices naturally move through space, but in the case of non-gravitational acceleration, like in a car or elevator, the vortices are being caused to move through space. That is why gravity and acceleration are equivalent – it is more-or-less the same effect, except one is natural movement and the other is artificial.
Cosmic Expansion, Cosmic Inflation, and Dark Energy:
Because nearly all astronomical objects are so large and distant from us that changes in their position (proper motion) are barely detectable, to measure the velocity of objects outside of the Milky Way, we utilize shift in the spectral lines of light received from those objects. A light’s wavelength is determined by the frequency of its wave (or its energy density). When light is stretched, the distance between waves lengthens, which is referred to as redshift. Likewise, when light is compacted, its wavelength is shortened, which is referred to as blueshift. Most of the objects we observe in space are redshifted, which was interpreted as indicating that the universe is continually expanding in all directions. Cosmic expansion is, of course, the primary evidence for the Big Bang. Also, the more distant the object, the more redshifted its light, which was interpreted as indicating that the rate of cosmic expansion is accelerating, which many scientists claim is caused by dark energy propelling the expansion. Space is indeed stretching. However, it is not stretching outward as the universe expands, but, rather, stretching as the medium gathers to create particles and as those particles gather. Not only would that negate dark energy, cosmic expansion, and, by extension, the Big Bang, but if the universe began in an expanded state, that provides a solution superior to cosmic inflation regarding why the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation are so homogeneous and isotropic. There is no evidence for the expansion of the universe that is not also addressed by the Universe of Light theory. Rather, it appears that the Universe of Light theory solves all the same problems and more without creating new problems, unlike many standard theories. There is no evidence that could be interpreted as indicating cosmic expansion that could not also be interpreted as having occurred without expansion.
The Intergalactic Medium:
Since objects are made of the medium, it is likely that most of the medium is within galaxies where most of the objects are. This means that the intergalactic medium, being so devoid of massive objects, is likely stretched very thin, and so light should pass between galaxies with a speed far exceeding 300-million meters per second relative to absolute space. By not taking into account the density of the medium, this has led to many anomalies and inaccurate measurements of distance and luminosity and has contributed to an inaccurate estimate of the age of the universe.
Objects toward the edges of galaxies appear to move too fast. It is thought that additional mass is required to explain how they are able to remain in orbit at such speeds. This (and gravitational lensing) led to the invention of dark matter. It is plausible that the medium within a galaxy forms a large vortex. And just as with particle vortices, a galactic vortex is denser toward its center. When the orbital speeds of stars were measured, only distance in absolute space was taken into account, not distance in the medium. If distance in the medium is taken into account, it can be seen that objects only appear to be moving too fast toward the edge, but they are just moving through space that is less dense, and so the medium they travel through is spread over a greater distance in absolute space, because the concentration of mass is denser toward the center of the vortex. As previously stated, light travels faster when the medium is less dense. And since all objects are made of light, it would make sense for them to also move faster through regions of space that are less dense without the need for additional mass or dark matter to explain their motions.
Black Holes and the Galactic Vortex:
Galactic vortices should potentially have a drain-like center due to the diameter of rotation in the medium shrinking toward their center. It seems more viable to attribute the cause of phenomena occurring at galactic centers, such as plasma jets and the peculiar proper motion of stars, which act as if they are circling a drain, to the center of the galactic vortex rather than black holes. If black holes exist, they cannot be infinitely dense, since, as noted when explaining why waves cannot spiral inward forever, that would require an infinite amount of energy. For that same reason, there cannot be an infinite number of waves in any area. Furthermore, the spiral formation of galaxies may also be attributed to the medium and formed in a manner similar to waves or wrinkles in many other materials.
The galactic vortex can produce two cone shapes that meet at the center of the galaxy, which, together, when viewed from the side, look like an X. This effect is visible in the Milky Way. That X-shape likely has some connection with a phenomenon referred to as “Fermi bubbles.” That is, two large spherical shapes connected at the center of our galaxy perpendicular to the galactic plane, which, together, when viewed from the side, look like a giant numeral “8”.
Though the speed of light is far greater than the speed at which galaxies and stars rotate, light can still be slightly misdirected as the medium it is traveling through twists. This results in stellar aberration, slightly shifting the apparent location of objects according to the motion of the observer and the space it is within. In this way, the medium is like a whirlpool of water – it is not at rest. It is easy to see the connection between the medium and a material called aether. The term aether is considered taboo in science, because it refers to something regarded as disproved. However, because of these large, location-specific vortices in the medium, the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is known for supposedly disproving the aether, cannot detect the motion of Earth through the medium, since, similar to objects in a vortex of water, the medium nearby Earth rotates with the Earth and the medium nearby the Sun rotates with the Sun.
Entropy, Quantum Fluctuations, and Particle Annihilation:
At first, the medium was homogeneous throughout the universe, but slight variations in its density led the waves to create regions of greater density and then vortices. Waves traveling toward the densest region in the medium is the mechanism that counteracts entropy. The universe began in a very high-entropy state, not a very low-entropy state, and entropy decreased by gathering into vortices on various scales. Because light is always moving through the vortices, everything is constantly absorbing and emitting light. The vortices must constantly take in light in order to emit it; otherwise, they would dissipate until formless. Light passing through vortices is also how atoms are able to become radioactive or suck heat out of the environment and go up the energy ladder instead of down. The reason two rays of light do not noticeably interact with each other is not because the light is massless, but because there is not enough energy in them to bend each other’s path. The medium is not dense enough. Space that we refer to as a vacuum is simply the least dense state of the medium, but even space that appears empty varies in density. Though there is little energy outside of particles, waves passing between them can interfere with each other causing sporadic variations in density. The amount of energy is rarely sufficient to retain shape, since most of the medium has already been distributed among existing particles. And so the new particles dissipate almost immediately. However, under close observation, these variations cause it to appear as if particles are constantly popping in and out of existence. The material they are formed of already exists. The waves just gather densely enough to register as particles, but not densely enough to create stable vortices. Considering that heat is a measure of the energy in the vortices and that energy can transfer between atoms at the speed of light, since it is light, the universe could not have been hot for a hundred-million years as contemporary theory states. That energy did not leave the universe, since the universe is made of that energy. It is likely that particles were created in a relatively short amount of time – perhaps within hours, if not minutes or even seconds, of the beginning of the universe. Naturally occurring vortices and heat are all that is needed to create atoms and fuse elements. Elements can be fused quickly with sufficient enough heat, which is a natural property of space, so it does not necessarily take years.
When particles annihilate each other, the energy does not disappear. Some of the energy may escape into the surrounding space, and the rest recombines into other particles of an equivalent amount of energy. If an electron and positron annihilate each other, they can create two electrons or two positrons in the process. In that case, energy may be conserved, but charge is not, because one positive charge and one negative charge should not otherwise be able to create two positive charges or two negative charges. That is why a charge-carrying particle is thought to be created and escape in the process, though this has never been experimentally verified. Nevertheless, the fact that one particle can turn into another or split into multiple particles suggests that all particles are made of the same basic material. When vortices are destroyed by extreme heat or collision and melded with each other and the medium in a region of formless energy, the information regarding what type of particle the waves were a part of and what element or object they were a part of is essentially destroyed.
There are heavier versions of many particles, between which they can oscillate simply by gaining or losing energy. Particles are able to absorb and emit light because they are made of light. The smaller the particle is, the less energy it needs to gain or lose in order to be considered a different type of particle. This further suggests that particles are made of the same material and exist in the same field. Vortices absorbing and emitting light is the mechanism responsible for “neutrino oscillation,” in which neutrinos change “flavors” or sizes/mass. Another reason to think particles are made of the same material is the fact that a high-energy photon can create other particles, like an electron, proton, or muon.
Vortices growing as more light passes through them is the primary reason elements usually expand when heated and become denser when cooled. It is also the cause of the photoelectric effect, in which many lower energy photons can pass through an electron without changing its size quickly and drastically enough to cause the electron to detach from the atom, but a single higher energy photon is enough to cause the electron to do so. The less dense the medium (or particle), the more wave-like it will behave, because it is more easily manipulated by movement in the medium, including waves produced by its own movement.
The passage of time can be attributed to a series of consecutive movements of energy waves within the medium. Without motion, it is not possible to tell if time is passing or how fast or in which direction. Time itself does not have a speed or a direction so much as it has an order of events resulting from movement, and it is light that has a speed and a direction. This creates the illusion that time has a direction and the dimension of time itself is somehow changing or “flowing,” but without change, there is no time. Since the speed of time is based on the speed of light, if light has an absolute universal speed within the material then there must also be an absolute universal time, because they are one and the same. Speed is measured by tracking the location of objects in the dimensions. When the medium is warped, the path of the object being tracked is also warped. It appears as if time is warped, but time as a dimension is intangible and cannot be affected. Time does not need to change if space changes. The measured effects perceived as time passing at different rates (time dilation) are simply the result of physical differences in the density and motion of light. These changes affect processes associated with the passage of time, specifically the things we use to measure time, such as the position of light and atoms, which are made of light. The absolute reference frame would be the three spatial dimensions. Time dilation is the result of changes within the medium, not a change in the temporal dimension. In a way, time can be thought of as the product of physical changes more so than a dimension. Without motion, time is not only immeasurable, but it could not be said that time exists, nor would it be possible to know if it did. The relative speed of time is dictated by the speed of light, and light’s position within absolute space serves to separate events in its sequence. So, what function is left for the dimension of time to provide in order to be considered existent? Time is measured by tracking position, and speed is measured by tracking relative position over time. Given that the speed of time is determined by the speed of light – and so the speed of light and the speed of time are the same – time cannot be used in factoring its speed, since there exists nothing but itself to compare with. Without another object to define the passage of time, that leaves only the relative position of light waves. From this, one could argue that time has no true speed or direction, and also that all of time occurred simultaneously. Time is only defined by consistent and relative changes in the position of light within absolute space.
Current theory holds that a magnetic field can be produced around a moving charge, and also that a charge can be produced by moving a magnet relative to a conductor (induction), such as a coil of copper wire. But how could a constant magnetic field be produced by a motionless object like a dipole magnet if the electricity in it is not moving? It appears that magnetism is neither paired with electricity (electromagnetism) nor a separate force, but, rather, electricity in motion. A magnetic field is the result of waves flowing in a unified direction. Every particle has electricity moving through it, and so every object is producing a magnetic field, even if that field appears negligible. A vortex has both an intake and output pole, which are like the north and south poles of a magnet. This causes the vortex to behave like a dipole magnet, which is apparent in the way vortices interact with each other and react to an applied magnetic field. Requiring a paired intake and output flow is the reason a magnetic monopole cannot exist. Electric waves are directed toward the densest region in space, and space is made of electric waves. This causes it to appear as if a magnetic field is rotating perpendicular to the direction of the current. However, that magnetic field is just the natural counter-clockwise motion of the electricity in the wire and in the space around the wire.
Scientists assume that when a particle is created, an “antiparticle” with the opposite charge must be created at the same time because charge must be conserved, but this is not true. Charge is not determined by a different type of electricity, but by the vortex’s direction of rotation, which gives the particle its orientation. A vortex’s orientation, and so its charge, can be changed by simply turning the vortex upside-down. Though, the bigger the vortex, the harder it is to rotate it in a magnetic field. In order for vortices to sit side-by-side, they must flow in opposite directions, like gears, but to link their poles, they must rotate in the same direction; otherwise, the flow of their electricity would push against one another. That is another example of vortices acting like dipole magnets. A particle’s spin, charge, antimatter counterpart, and pairing are all the result of its orientation relative to another particle or the direction of an electric current, such as in a magnetic field. Not only does this notion (and others mentioned in Universe of Light) appear to account for the motions of particles where electric charges would otherwise be inferred, but it seems to be a viable solution to the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.
Because electricity always spirals counter-clockwise relative to the direction of the current, all fundamental particles should be physically the same except for the amount of energy passing through them. It has not been proven experimentally that the counter-clockwise rotation of the magnetic field around an electric current can also flow clockwise or that the experimental results regarding its direction of rotation is somehow caused by the electrons that the current is flowing through. So, we cannot assume that a vortex can flow in the opposite direction relative to its poles, nor can we assume that positive and negative charges are physically different from each other.
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, electrons are shot through a magnetic field, wherein half of the electrons move toward the positive pole and half toward the negative pole. Despite being the same type of particle, they act like they have different charges. This result is responsible for the theory of quantum “spin,” which does not refer to any actual rotation, but is, instead, a mathematical construct used to explain their behavior, though its cause has no real physical explanation. Also, if electrons flow in opposite directions through two electric currents nearby a perpendicular magnetic field, one stream of electrons will be attracted to the magnet and the other stream will be repelled by it. In that experiment as well as the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the orientation of the particle’s poles relative to the poles of the magnetic field determines how the particle reacts. Since electrons are paired, half will go one way and half the other way, because they are oriented in opposite directions. The reason a “spin-down electron” is experimentally indistinguishable from a “spin-up positron” is because they are the same thing. To further reinforce this idea, in other experiments, photons have been made to travel in rings using magnetic wave-guides. Rings of light traveling in opposite directions cannot stack, but they can be side-by-side.
Quarks, Protons, and Neutrons:
Unlike individual particles, larger vortices, like protons, are composed of smaller vortices (quarks) linked pole-to-pole in a ring, creating a single, larger vortex through the center of that ring. The current flowing between the quarks is what appears to be gluons (carriers of the strong force); however, gluons do not actually exist. That is the real reason why fractional charges have never been observed alone. The vortices linked in a ring are also the cause of the “particle emitting cones” seen in certain experiments on quarks and gluons. These cones or jets are observed rather than quarks, whose existence is merely inferred.
Regarding how a neutron can decay into a proton and an electron during beta decay, and a proton can become a neutron by “absorbing” an electron (electron capture), it might be possible that neutrons are simply a proton-electron pair. The difference in energy between a proton and a neutron is about an electron’s worth. A proton should not be able to turn into a neutron by emitting a positron, since doing so would indicate that the proton becomes a particle with more mass by losing a particle that also has mass. Neutrons have a negative “magnetic moment,” and so it can act like a negative charge despite supposedly having a neutral charge.
The reason neutrons appear to decay, and not protons, is because only one orientation is aligned with the nearby magnetic field. The magnetic field forces much of the neutrons light (likely its paired electron) to leave and forces the remaining proton to flip in order for its orientation to match the flow of electricity through the magnetic field or be manipulated by other local currents, like neighboring atoms or particles. The larger the vortex, the more resistant it is to being manipulated. If a vortex is caused to flip by a magnetic field, it may emit the excess energy as gamma rays. So, theoretically, it should be possible to shorten the average lifespan of a neutron outside of an atom by placing it in a stronger magnetic field.
A deuteron (a nucleus of the isotope deuterium), which is one proton and one neutron, has an electric quadrupole moment, acting like two positive and two negative charges. That is caused by the poles of the proton and neutron’s vortices. Their output poles appear like positive charges and their intake poles appear like negative charges.
An atom is also a vortex, which is shaped like the 3-dimensional magnetic field of a dipole magnet, leading to its mostly spherical shape. The nucleus creates the concentrated center of the atomic vortex, wherein the nucleus resides, and electrons sit in the broader, weaker, counter-rotating outer region of the vortex. The flow of energy through the inner vortex of the atom must match the counter-rotational flow of the outer vortex; otherwise, the atom would have a slightly greater rotation in one direction, causing it to act like a charge. The atomic vortex’s direction of rotation relative to other vortices determines whether it acts like a positive or negative charge. If the rotation in an atomic vortex is balanced between the inner and outer vortex, the medium funnels straight through it. Atoms are neutral because of their balanced motion, not because they have an equal amount of two different types of charge. The atom is not a cluster of nucleons (particles in the nucleus) surrounded by electrons in seemingly random orbits or clouds of probability, which is the contemporary theory. Nucleons as well as the electrons surrounding them are linked in rings perpendicular to the poles of the atomic vortex. Unlike particle vortices, the atomic vortex has counter-rotational layers (shells) which are composed of rings. To balance the motion of the atomic vortex, the particles in each shell flow in the opposite direction of the shell inside and outside of it. Not only are there counter-rotational shells, but there may also be counter-rotational rings that flow in the opposite direction of the rings above and below them in the same shell. The number of electrons orbiting the nucleus is determined by the strength of the inner vortex, which is determined by the number of nucleons. The more distant a shell is from the center of the atom, the more electricity it is required to circulate in order to maintain a balanced flow between layers, since it must cover a larger area, which is why the number of electrons required to complete each successive shell generally increases as the atom grows. Vortices are very sensitive to the imbalance in rotation and are drawn to the strongest imbalance nearby. The atom must have counter-rotational layers to remain neutral, otherwise, it would be a larger version of the smaller vortex, which acts like a charge. Also, if the atom did not maintain a relatively even counter-rotation, the particles would be pulled much more strongly into the center of the atomic vortex and collapse the atomic structure. Not only that, but if they always acted like giant charges, the way atoms interact with other atoms as their shells fill would not work anymore. Because there must be a balance in rotation between the inner and outer vortex, the atom cannot maintain a greatly unbalanced quantity between its nucleons and electrons. How the atom interacts with other atoms and particles is primarily determined by the strength of the atom’s outer shell, which is normally the only shell not filled, and so the outermost shell determines the strength of its charge. Each ring has a specific capacity to become full. Electron shells are composed of rings of electrons. An electron ring is filled when there are enough electrons in it to have each electron link pole-to-pole with the electron in front of it, just like a ring of magnets, around the vortex. The completion and starting of electron rings is what causes the jagged ionization energy spikes as the shell is filling, not the contemporary theory of “atomic orbitals,” which is just another mathematical construct.
The nucleus being comprised of rings can help to explain the various shapes of nuclei – spherical, rugby ball, discus, pear, and triaxial (oval discus). Its shape is determined by the size, quantity, and position of the nucleon rings within the vortex.
Electrons have specific distances they orbit because they are repelled by the counter-rotational motion of the shell below them. When an electron moves from one orbital distance to another, it is not the result of some mysterious “quantum leap.” It is possible for an electron to jump from one shell to another by absorbing or emitting energy, as in a photon. Since the electrons are linked in rings, the photon absorbed or emitted would have to contain high enough energy to break their link and cause the electron to be repelled. Photons are likely just densities of energy too small to divert the path of other waves enough to create a vortex. Photons do not appear to act like a dipole magnets, though they are capable of moving “uncharged” matter.
It does not seem that particles within atoms actually move in their orbit. Particles having definite positions explains how molecular (covalent) bonds, in which atoms share electrons, are possible better than if those electrons moved around the nuclei of multiple atoms.
The Atomic Size Limit and Radioactivity
The atomic size limit is determined by the amount of light flowing through the atom and whether or not that can be continually circulated through the atomic vortex without over-energizing the particles within it, causing them to leave the atom. The more vortices in the atom, the greater the amount of medium that runs through it, which results in a greater intake of light, which, in turn, must result in a greater light output. An atom becomes radioactive when it holds a high quantity of light which causes a high quantity of light to pass through it. This can cause larger atoms to emit a jet of energy (or high-energy particles) like a microscopic version of the plasma jet emitted from the center of a galaxy. The rays of light emitted by radioactive atoms can have enough energy to cause harm to living things, particularly the rays emitted from the axis of the atom’s poles, where its output and intake are strongest. If atoms did not re-emit the light it absorbs, then it must eventually result in particle generation; otherwise, the vortex would endlessly grow larger.
According to contemporary theory, a photon is emitted when an electron moves from an outer shell to an inner shell, but that is not the case. Electrons from one shell do not normally penetrate the shell above them, since they are bound in rings and each shell flows in the opposite direction of the one below it. Electrons are only able to collect a certain amount of light before they are forced by the shell above them to re-emit the light; otherwise, the electron will leave its orbit and hinder the atomic structure. So, a photon is not emitted by an electron moving from one shell to another, but it is emitted to keep the electron from moving from one shell to another.
An element is heated by causing more light to flow through its vortices, which causes the vortices to grow until the light has passed through them and they regain equilibrium. Because atoms normally increase size when heated, certain materials exhibit superconductivity when higher than 25 degrees kelvin (K). (Note: to convert kelvin to Celsius, just subtract 273.15 degrees.) Temperature is a measure of the amount of light emitted. Particles do not move more rapidly as a result of an increase in thermal energy. An increase in energy distances the vortices by increasing their size. When an element changes its state (Bose-Einstein condensate > solid > liquid > gas > plasma), this is called a “phase change.” Heat energy can be added without raising an element’s temperature for a period as it is entering a more energetic state. During the phase change, energy must pass through particles in the atom evenly so that they can grow together. As demonstrated with the photoelectric effect, particles or atoms would unlink and be jettisoned if they were to collect much more energy than the particles or atoms they are linked with.
Like vortices, magnets link when their magnetic fields flow in the same direction – flow together, go together. Magnetic domains are groups of atoms oriented in the same direction, and so their magnetic fields are flowing in a unified direction. Magnetic domains are most often extremely small and in high quantity. Vortices orient themselves according to their strongest nearby influence, which, for atoms, is normally their neighboring atomic vortices. Contrary to contemporary understanding, magnetizing and demagnetizing elements by heating them past their Curie temperature has much less to do with molecular or kinetic motion than it does with distancing the center-points of the element’s atomic vortices from each other. Doing so weakens their previous bond and unlinks them, freeing them to realign in a more unified or disordered structure. When creating a permanent magnet, a ferromagnetic element is placed inside a strong magnetic field. The external magnetic field causes the vortices inside the magnet to align with its direction of flow and so causes the vortices to align with each other, and, as it cools, their new orientation is retained for the most part, creating what is essentially a single magnetic domain or a larger scale version of the smaller vortices, which are dipoles. The overall magnetic field does not appear to spiral like particles vortices do, but, instead, it is made up of individual spiraling strands, and so it has no direction of rotation, like a neutral atom. When vortices flow in conflicting directions so that their rotation creates resistance between them, one will reorient, if possible, to minimize this pressure; otherwise, they will repel each other. A magnetic domain will often split into two domains flowing in opposite directions or align into rows (one up, one down, one up, etc.), as in ferrimagnetic materials. In that case, just as with individual vortices, the orientation of the nearby rows causes the rows between them to reorient in the opposite direction. Each row aids the flow of the rows beside it for the same reason that vortices link: their motion must aid each other’s, like gears, or else their flow will clash.
The light that passes through a vortex is the same light that makes up the space around it. A magnetic field is produced as an electric current passes through a conductor, and an electric current can be produced by passing a magnetic field through a conductor. When an electric current moves, it moves the same electricity that space, matter, and magnetic fields are composed of. So, when a magnetic field is moved through a conductor, it moves the same electricity that the vortices in the conductor are composed of. The induced current flows in the direction that the magnetic field is moved. The caused motion of the magnet, and so its magnetic field, is aiding the natural motion of electricity through the vortices in the conductor, which produces an increase in electric current relative to the amount of electricity caused to move through the vortices in the conductor. If a stronger magnet is used, more magnetic field (or current) flows through the vortices. If the coil of wire is wrapped more times, increasing the amount of the conductive element, there are more vortices for the magnetic field to move through. If the magnet is moved faster, a greater excess of electricity will be produced in the conductor, because electricity is being made to pass through its vortices faster. Electricity is not being created so much as it is being artificially passed through the vortices in the conductor. An excess of electricity is not produced by a magnet alone for the same reason it is not produced by a vortex. The vortex simply redirects the natural path of electricity. Its intake and output are balanced, and so it is in a sort of equilibrium with the space around it. Electricity cannot be harvested from a vortex anymore than it could be harvested from the vacuum of space. There is no excess of electricity being caused to move through it. Moving a magnetic field through a vortex either adds to or impedes the natural amount being passed through it.
Heat and light are both electricity. This is one reason why hot objects often glow and objects that produce a lot of light are typically very hot. The electricity that energizes particles when they are heated is no different from the electricity in a spark like static discharge. And because heat is electricity, it is possible that static discharge can be caused by having a warm element (or body) contact a cold conductive element, like metal, when there is no water (like humidity) to intermediate or absorb much of the excess thermal energy as it passes between them. That is also why static discharge is more prominent when it is cold. One usually does not cause static discharge by having electricity enter them, but, rather, by having it leave them, since we are the warmer body. The greater the difference in temperature, the more likely this will occur. Even if an object is room temperature, if it is contacted by an extremely cold, flammable liquid, for example, the drastic heat transfer may cause a static discharge, resulting in ignition.
The traditional theory for the creation of lightning is that ice crystals rub together in a cloud, creating a positively charged region and a negatively charged region which results in a large static discharge. However, when clouds were searched for these positive and negative regions, the difference in charge was never strong enough to be capable of producing lightning. Furthermore, it is clear that water and ice are not required for the creation of lightning, since lightning can be found in volcanic plumes and sandstorms (dry lightning), despite sand being an insulator and so it should not conduct static electricity in that way. It does not seem that lightning is actually static discharge. So, what is it that these three lightning-producing events (rainstorms, sandstorms, and volcanic eruptions) have in common that could produce lightning? Rapid cooling as the elements rise in the atmosphere. As previously stated, thermal energy and electrical energy are physically the same thing. When water is heated, in order to evaporate, it must collect enough additional energy to result in a phase change. As the water vapor rises, it cools and condenses again, creating clouds and rain, but the additional electricity that water collected from heat still exists. That excess electricity is freed from the atoms and builds up and, if done so quickly enough and in high enough quantity, it will result in discharge (lightning). The same release of heat occurs in volcanic plumes and sand storms, except without the phase change. Lightning is not typically found with hurricanes for a few reasons: a hurricane’s large volume of space is able to contain more electricity without resulting in discharge and its funnel cloud often touches the ground so the electricity can travel directly through the cloud to the ground without discharging. Unusually strong hurricanes often still have lightning though – typically above the eye-wall where its updraft is strongest. This leads us to what might be the most important factor in the creation of lightning in all cases: the production of lightning appears to be aided heavily by updrafts, which force the elements to cool faster; otherwise, the electricity would have more time to dissipate before building up.
A corona is a large layer of plasma surrounding a star. Because of this plasma, it is believed that the Sun’s corona is about 1,000,000–2,000,000 K, although the Sun’s photosphere (surface) is only about 4,500-6,000 K. Also, sunspots are dark and roughly 3,000–4,500 K. This seems to defy the common sense prediction that it would be hotter and brighter nearer to the center of the Sun. It is like heat increasing as you backed away from a fire. If particles are made of dense space, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the corona is not actually hotter than the surface of the Sun, but, instead, the plasma seen in the corona is an emergent property of dense space and not an indication of temperatures exceeding 1-million degrees. Not only is the space around the Sun more dense, which would take heat longer to leave and waves longer to dissipate, but the energy found within that space should be sufficient to create enough particles so that it appears as plasma. It seems that coronal plasma and quantum fluctuations have the same cause, but in drastically different proportions due to their difference in energy density.
Celestial Magnetic Fields:
The contemporary theory is that Earth’s magnetic field is generated by Earth’s outer core being circulated by heat from its inner core (geodynamo), but the cause of the Sun’s magnetic field is considered more of a mystery. If magnetism is intrinsic to all matter, like heat, then all objects must have a magnetic field. The strength of an object’s magnetic field should correlate most with its mass and mass-to-size ratio (density) regardless of its capability of containing an internal dynamo. So, celestial objects with little mass will usually have a magnetic field too weak to produce substantial effects. Venus, Mars, Mercury, Pluto, our moon, and even Ganymede (an icy moon of Jupiter), which all have less mass than Earth, have a magnetic field, but not one of significant strength compared to Earth. Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter, which all have more mass than Earth, all have magnetic fields significantly stronger than Earth’s.
Stars are primarily classified by their surface temperature. The classes are as follows: O > B > A > F > G > K > M. Class O stars have between 15 and 90 times the mass of the Sun and a surface temperature between 30,000 and 52,000 K. On the other end, class M stars are between 0.075 and 0.5 solar masses and have a surface temperature below 4,000 K. Class M stars are by far the most common type of star in our galaxy (76.45%). Class M stars and some class K stars are typically what we call “red dwarf” stars, because of their reddish appearance due to having low luminosity. Brown dwarf stars, which are even dimmer (and more of a dark red than brown), are considered “substellar objects (an astronomical object with less mass than the smallest mass at which hydrogen fusion can be sustained).” If heat, luminosity, and mass are all measurements of the density of light, it would follow that the burning of stars should come as a natural result of being dense space. Since space and heat are the same physical material, denser space must be hotter by definition. That would explain why the cores of stars and planets are hotter than their surface. It also suggests that the most central difference between stars and planets is their mass. Stars and planets should be viewed as being on the same gradient, with dwarf stars positioned between them on that gradient. After brown dwarf stars would be planets, then dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, and so on. We do not have planets with more mass than a star, because, then, they would be stars, and we do not have stars with less mass and volume than a planet, because they would be classified as planets. Jupiter is a good example. It is close to the mass of a small star, its atmosphere is mostly made of hydrogen and helium in roughly solar proportions, and it is almost as turbulent as a star. It is also inexplicably hot despite receiving only 3.3% as much sunlight as Earth, yet it has regions on it with temperatures hotter than lava. Because of the star-planet gradient, from here on in this manuscript, the whole spectrum will be generally referred to as planets.
As with the magnetic fields of planets, there also appears to be a correlation between a planet’s turbulence (movement in the atmosphere, like storms) and its mass and density. The larger and denser the planet is, the stronger its magnetic field, the more heat it contains and produces, and the higher its turbulence. Even on Earth, we supposedly see a correlation between heat and the number of storms. Storms seem to have less to do with energy from the sun than they do with heat and magnetism. For example, Uranus, which is distant from the sun, still has storms.
More massive and dense planets contain greater heat. According to Charles’ law, more heat results in greater volume. On large scales, this is counteracted by gravitational pressure. The total volume that protons and electrons take up becomes denser as lighter elements fuse into heavier elements, and when they decay (fission), the opposite happens. Planets may explode due to pressure created by decaying elements, whether they decay naturally or, more likely, as a result of being subjected to intense heat. Typically denser elements decay faster and can decay more, which may build up pressure at the core of the planet where its heat is greatest. The more dense and massive the planet is, the more inner turbulence and pressure that will result from this. The size of the explosion (or supernova) depends on the size and density of the planet. Also, this decay process could be one of the primary causes of plate tectonics and volcanic activity.
The Faint Young Sun Paradox:
Supposedly, the Sun is becoming hotter and brighter over time. The "faint young Sun paradox" refers to the fact that Earth used to have liquid water at a time when that water should have been frozen due to the Sun's output being about 70% as intense at that time. Currently, the primarily held theory to explain this is that the water was kept warm by greenhouse gases. However, it might be possible that the water was liquid at the time if much of Earth's water was created and stored below the surface, where it was kept warm, being closer to Earth's core.
I hope you enjoyed Universe of Light: The Biblical Theory of Everything. If you would like to show your appreciation, you are welcome to rate, review, and share it or leave me a tip at Digital Tip Jar:
Universe of Light: The Biblical Theory of Everything is a short, info-packed book of alternative interpretations to scientific evidence which challenge current understanding and, together, confidently create what appears to be the most viable explanation for the long-sought-after Theory of Everything ever constructed. Not only does Universe of Light provide plausible solutions to half of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, but it is more compatible with the Bible, common sense, and experimentation, since its parts fit together without contradiction, unlike many mainstream theories. Topics covered include: time, gravity, dark matter, black holes, energy, particle creation, wave-particle duality, magnetic monopoles, antimatter, electric charge, ionization, the creation of lightning, quantum mechanics, quantum fluctuations, the coronal heating problem, redshift and how it applies to cosmic expansion, cosmic inflation, dark energy, and the Big Bang, and more. The philosophical principle known as Occam's razor states that when there exists two explanations for an occurrence, the simpler one is more likely to be true. And no proposed Theory of Everything could be simpler than one that claims that everything in the universe is made up of just one thing: light.