THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED
THE CLEMENTS THEORY (2009)
(Another Point of View)
I am sure you have looked up into the night sky at the stars and wondered "where did they all come from"? You might then have wondered about the Universe, how it all started, when it started and how old is it? How much longer will it last? Many have tried to explain The Universe but this time that goal is achieved. It is a realisation of how simple it really is. Well, read on!
The author does not apologise for constantly stating the painfully obvious within this paper. This paper is, hopefully, presented in a manner that can be understood by anyone who is interested in the subject and cares to read it, regardless of their level of education on the subject matter. Within this paper there are many words or statements in BOLD face, commonly regarded on the internet as shouting. That is chat room etiquette but this is a serious paper, not a chat room, so the author hopes you see the necessity to embolden some parts. This paper has been written because the author saw that many who are working on this subject seem to have lost the plot. They can no longer see the wood for the trees. It is time for another point of view. This paper has been prepared using only two of the most basic of tools available to man, namely, observation (of what nature shows us) and evaluation of that observation using simple logic, whilst maintaining an observation of the laws of Physics and Chemistry, which the author believes will apply anywhere in the universe. The object was to create in plain English a working model of this Universe which we live in that will fully explain it from it's origin to its end.
Whenever we observe nature it becomes obvious that nature works in cycles or circles, NOT straight lines. Straight lines do not occur naturally, they were invented by mankind. They allow us to measure, construct buildings etc. Nature is not like that. The author has never seen a square leaf, or a tree with a square trunk. Within a natural cycle the circle might be an ellipse (a squashed circle). Natural cycles have a lifetime which allows one cycle to contain any number of sub cycles. Natural cycles also usually have 2 equal and opposite parts which take turns in enjoying dominance. One is usually displaying positive tendencies and the other negative tendencies. For instance, 1 day and one revolution of the earth, midnight to midnight, and within this the 2 phases of dominance are night and day. Daytime is positive, it is light and warm, people are up and doing something constructive whilst at night they sleep thus doing nothing and night is therefore negative. The next cycle is 1 year containing 365 daily cycles, once round the sun, new years day to new years day, the 2 phases of dominance being summer and winter. In this cycle summer is positive, plants grow, animals reproduce and so on,whilst winter, when plants do not grow and animals hibernate, is negative. If we start AT ANY POINT on the natural cycle and travel round the outside edge we will ALWAYS return to the start point. Observing Mother Nature, we can see that the most complex thing that we currently know within our universe is animal life. Given this complexity, it still starts with only 2 cells which are equal and opposite, the female egg which is static (not unlike Gravity) sitting there waiting to consume the male sperm, (not unlike Energy), dynamic and unresting until it searches out and finds the egg. The marvel is the complexity of life as the specialist parts, eyes, organs etc. that develop from the constant division of cells. If this is Mother Natures way, then surely the universe must obey similar rules EXCEPT the division is instant, coming from the Big Bang!
Varying time in a Natural cycle
Natural cycles cannot be broken. Some of them can be varied in their lifetime scale but never broken. Quite obviously, we cannot make a day longer or shorter than it is BUT, we invented British Summertime to assist bomber command in the second world war. The cycle remains at 24 hours duration, we just alter our clocks so we get up an hour earlier, thus pinching an extra hour of daylight, so everyone conforms to a one hour shift in time for a few months and then back again to their normal working day. So far, we have not yet altered the time scale of a year but every four years we have a leap year just to even out the mathematical difference between the number of twenty four hour periods in one year and the real length of a year, 365 and one quarter days. There is more discussion on time variance within a natural cycle in the addenda section.
Rules and Laws
Within science we have laws which have been established by experimentation to prove them. Within laws we have rules which protect the integrity of the law. The rules are applied and adhered to within the experimentation process to ensure we do not contaminate the process and, therefore, the result. Within nature we almost always see the exception which breaks the law or the rule but, by doing so, confirms the law or the rule. The laws of physics may not be the same elsewhere in the Universe as they are here on Earth, however the author believes that they are. The laws of physics and chemistry are fundamental when dealing with mass, but before the formation of mass, they cannot apply! Within The Clements Theory (2009), exceptions may be cited which appear to prove the theory, but will be fully explained. The explanation of the formation of mass uses only logic and observation of natures way of working.
The Hawking Universe
Stephen Hawking says he cannot understand why Gravity is so weak in comparison to the other forces. If he had seen the Universe is as described herein, he would have seen that he held the answer to his own question. In his excellent book “A Brief History of Time” he makes the suggestion that time appears linear to us because we enjoy so little of it in our lifetime. Time, within the life of the Universal natural cycle according to The Clements Theory (2009), is really a circle or an ellipse. Mr. Hawking was right about time not being linear and, if he had seen from that the true natural cycle of the Universe, he would have seen that gravity appears to be so weak because he is viewing it at its least dominant point.
On the strength of Mr Hawkings comments on time NOT being
linear, the American Government of the day put $50M into a think
tank to see if they could discuss and come up with some basic rules
that might govern the possibility of travelling in time at some point
in the future. Well, the author knows, from the laws of nature, we can
send a manned flight to the moon and back but to go further depends on
one thing, the lifespan of man! The time it would take to go to Pluto
would see our astronaut dead before he got there. Surely the same laws
would apply in time travel. Rules? Certainly, nobody could go back
beyond the point at which he was born and could not go forward beyond
the point of their death. The travel would be confined to pure tourism
as nobody could have any influence on events yet to happen, but what
would be the result if we saw what tomorrow may bring? ALL time
travellers would become immensely rich on their return, using the
knowledge of what they had just seen. Worse than this, we could all
see the date, time and manner of our own death. THAT
is a major motive for most of those who saw this to try to change
things! This ensures the author to conclude that travel in time is
never likely to be achievable! Notwithstanding the comments herein, the
author is watching with immense interest, the news from CERN regards
particles appearing to have travelled at a speed in EXCESS of Constant!
The author will be waiting to hear what the outcome of the
investigations into this are and, then, what the academics think about
the possibility of time travel because of this.
The 4th Dimension Universe
There has been talk of considering other dimensions to explain what triggered the big bang. A Cambridge based physicist suggests that a 4th dimension bumped into another of the dimensions and that caused the big bang. The 3 dimensions we know are left and right, up and down and forward and back. We can all comprehend 3 dimensions because we see and use them every day and that is BASIC and LOGICAL! The only fourth dimension which has a profound effect on the Universe is TIME, which, in Universe terms, is fully discussed in this paper!
THE CLEMENTS UNIVERSE
It MUST be obvious to anyone that The Universe IS NOT MAN MADE! Therefore it must be a thing of nature. If a natural occurrence then it must obey a natural cycle. The Universe cycle consists of 2 basic things. They are ENERGY which is dynamic (sometimes explosive) and therefore positive and GRAVITY which is implosive and therefore negative. BUT WHAT ABOUT MASS you might ask? Mass is ephemeral as opposed to basic within the heart of this Universe. If the time elapsed since the big bang is ACCURATELY calculated as 13.73 billion years, and the calculation of 4.7 billion years for the age of the Earth is also accurate, then there is 9.03 billion years without mass IF Earth was the first mass to form which is unlikely! We can certainly count on over 1 billion years without any mass at all, NOT EVEN PARTICLES! Now let us consider the 2 main ingredients of the Universe individually.
Energy is a dynamic and, SOMETIMES, explosive force and therefore positive. That which is not gravity is energy and can be found in many different forms such as radiation, heat, light etc. but it is all part of the sum total of energy found in the Universe. We normally cannot see it, touch it or taste it but we do use it. Our Sun gives us radiation, light and heat. We can feel heat but not taste it and we see the results of heat but we do not see heat itself. This also applies to radiation. We all have seen the natural power of Electricity in thunder storms. We can “generate” electricity, use it or store it in batteries for later use. We can feel an electric shock but we cannot see electricity, only the effect of it in a storm. Can we taste it? If we hold a battery to our tongue with both contacts touching the tongue, we feel the tingle and it tastes metallic. Is that the electricity we taste OR the 2 metal contacts OR the taste of the metal the electricity is stored in inside the battery? Within the Universe there is a finite sum total quantity of energy. OH NO THERE ISN'T you cry. We generate electricity! No we do not. We convert another form of energy into electricity because we know how to store, distribute and use electricity. If we use a running river to produce hydro electricity, we merely convert the energy inherent in running water into electricity. In a coal fired power station we convert the energy trapped within the coal to drive the generator to produce electricity. Therefore, we do not fundamentally alter the gross amount of energy in the Universe.
is much like magnetism. Gravity is an IMPLOSIVE
force in that
it wants to absorb its surroundings. Once these surroundings are
absorbed they are converted into their basic state which is either gravity or energy. Gravity is negative in that
it is a consumer! Whatever it consumes is converted back into
gravity, thus the gravity centre will become more intense (it's power
would be increased by what it absorbs) and thus more dense, possibly
"heavier" (weight is the resistance to gravity) due to the increase in density and certainly SMALLER
due to the implosive nature of gravity! We cannot see it, feel it
or taste it, so
research is limited. As with energy, there is a finite quantity of
gravity in the Universe. The strength of gravity is associated with
heat, the hotter it is, the stronger it is. Gravity cannot solidify or
change state if it is pure, thus "unallocated" 100% pure gravity,
wherever it is found in the universe, may correspond to what science
calls "dark matter" should it cool down. It will not be seen, will be
difficult to detect, will be very weak but it will be there.
the Universe is a Vacuum which contains the 2 main constituents. The
vacuum is most important and is not counted as a part of the Universe as a vacuum is NOTHING. To explain, if we are confronted with a burning oil
well we have a big problem, how
to put it out!
We use the laws of physics and chemistry to put it out by preparing
an explosive charge, placing it on a trellis, then,
using a radio controlled tractor, move the trellis right next to the fire and
then detonate it. An explosion forces EVERYTHING
away from the centre of the bang, EVEN THE AIR
around it, thus creating a vacuum. That means no oxygen. No oxygen
means NO BURN!
the fire is out. The time frame for the vacuum bubble to expand away
from the epicentre of the explosion is probably 2 or 3 seconds of
expansion but, because of the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere, it
only takes, at a guess, 1/100th of a second for
to disappear again. This is because the vacuum bubble is trying to
expand against an outside resistance. If there were no atmospheric
pressure how far would the vacuum bubble expand and for how long?
This question can also be applied to the Universe. The fact that the
Universe is a vacuum is also confirmation to the author that the
start of the Universal cycle is, most definitely a big bang.
The importance of the vacuum is that things can travel through it without any resistance. The Apollo rocket that went to the moon burnt fuel to escape the Earth's atmosphere but then turned off the engines. It travelled to the moon on it's impetus from the velocity of it's escape from the Earth's atmosphere. In this way it had just enough fuel to fire the engines and slow down when it reached the moons gravitational field. It also had enough fuel to escape the moons gravitational field and most importantly, enough fuel to control the re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere. If space were not a vacuum, there would be resistance to anything that moved in it. Under those conditions, Apollo would have had to burn fuel all the way to the moon, making the trip under current technology, impossible, it could never carry enough fuel. Thus, we understand the ability of anything to travel through the vacuum unimpeded!
Mass and State Within Mass
Before the author explains the real nature of mass, where it comes from and how it forms he would like to talk about STATE. There are many forms of mass. Within mass, there are also natural states. On Earth we have the forms of mass known as elements and which are listed in the periodic table. Some are gasses, some liquids, some are solids and some are crystals, being another form of their respective solid. These are the natural states they are found in ON THIS EARTH! There may be elements not found on Earth but which might be found elsewhere in the universe. The normal Earth states can be written in a vertical column in descending order, which is:
The above list contains BEC (Bose Einstein Condensate) which will be discussed shortly. This order, apart from the BEC, is established because of the laws of physics. To reduce a gas to a liquid we must remove temperature, usually under very high pressure. Most liquids can be reduced to their solid state just by the removal of temperature. Reduction from the SOLID state is where it changes. Whilst some chemical crystals can be grown in a saturated solution at room temperature, things like artificial diamonds are produced by INTRODUCING VERY HIGH TEMPERATURES under EXTREME PRESSURE. To change the state of a substance involves EITHER the addition or removal of HEAT (energy)! This change plays a big part when we discuss the natural cycle of the Universe.
The one extra
item in the above list is the BEC (Bose Einstein
Condensate). This we are just beginning to understand. It was
discovered when liquefying helium by supercooling it under extreme
pressure. Once in liquid form the helium gave the appearance of
boiling. When it was taken to within 4/100ths of a degree above
absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C) it appeared to stop boiling and went
calm. Also, at this point, it seeped through the bottom of the
container that it was in. It clearly displayed properties that were
quite unexpected and very unusual. BECS have now
at MIT in America using ribidium gas and elsewhere
sodium in its gas form. The Clements Theory (2009)
believes that a
BEC is the natural state of the interface between EVERY
liquid and solid. The exception to this is when a solid becomes a gas WITHOUT reverting
back to liquid form first, such as dry ice.
When we melt lead for industrial use, time is money, so we overheat it to melt it as quickly as possible. IF we know the EXACT melting point of lead to, say, 20 decimal places, and we were capable of applying heat so accurately controlled as to reach each decimal place in turn and stop to observe, it is the authors opinion that we would see the BEC state. It is unlikely, at this time, that we can build an apparatus so accurate as to verify this, but if we could, we would have the proof. The Clements Theory (2009) is that EVERY mass has its own BEC right at the point in between liquid and solid but it lasts for such a short time (maybe 1 millionth of a second) that we can never see it. This is an area ripe for research, as the unusual properties of those BECS that we have seen suggest many applications if we can create BECS at will and maintain them in the BEC state. The laws of state are paramount to explaining the BEC and the Universe.
This nicely leads us to the finish of the discussion of state. Think of your garden pond in winter. When it gets cold enough it may freeze over. Once the ice has formed it actually protects the water underneath the ice from further freezing by sheltering it from the wintry conditions that caused the freeze. Only in Siberian type conditions will the layer of ice keep thickening. So we have above the ice a chill factor and a freezing atmosphere, then we have the ice and, underneath the ice, we have water that is slightly warmer than the ice because of the protection of that ice. THIS IS HOW NATURE WORKS and will apply later in this paper. If we apply time to state then the chart might look like this:
Gravity and Energy
Particles found in The Standard Model
Protons, Neutrons and Electrons
Gravity and Energy
is the progression of the formation of mass from the big bang. From G
and E to gas would have been 9 to 10 Billion years, as we are told the
Earth is 4.3 Billion years old. Now you might get a feel for how long
it takes a body to lose heat by radiation in a vacuum. As the smaller
particles form, they are in a "soup" around the body they are formed
from and might look like "plasma" through a telescope. As heat is lost
the ability for the "soup" to be sufficiently liquid is lost, hence the
formation of the larger particles from the smaller ones. I might
suggest that the particles from The Standard Model will all be
different percentags of G and E which will give them their different
properties. As Protons, Neutrons and Electrons are formed I might
suggest that anything which has a combined amount of Gravity in excess
of 55% will be a Proton, between 45% and 55% will be a Neutron and
under 45% will be an Electron. Obviously no time scale can be given to
Gas to Crystal as we do not know when the Earth will end. Again, we do
not know the timescale for Crystal to Gravity and Energy. From the top,
Energy has been dominant BUT once we go past Crystal, we have no idea
of the power of Gravity. I believe it is much more violent and
devastating than we can imagine. This change will take place once the
universe stops expanding. At that point, when all big bang impetus has
been exhausted, the power of the black holes will be dominant. They
will absorb ALL mass in their respective gravity fields, converting it
back into G and E. The last part will be the bigger black holes
"eating" the smaller ones until there is only one left, which is the
Singularity ready to go BANG and form the next universe.
The Clements Theory (2009)
The author wants you to imagine if you can, the Singularity, a giant ball of gravity which is at it's most dominant and has entrapped within it all the energy in the Universe. It will be a good few million (or billion) degrees in temperature and with inward pressures of a few trillion tonnes per square millimetre, impossible to really imagine, but it could be only the size of a golf ball! There is NO MASS WHATSOEVER, not even PARTICLES! We only have GRAVITY and ENERGY. The energy is trapped within the gravitational pull BUT it really wants to break out so the mix is extremely volatile! Because of all the interaction between the energy wanting to escape and the gravity wanting to contain it the whole of the singularity is a giant soup of movement. This movement will cause polarity to develop and gravity will have a greater affinity to polarity than energy as it will want to contain it. We will then have a NORTH and a SOUTH to the singularity which will be predominantly gravity. This leaves most of the energy in the middle! Birds of a feather? Yes the energy is happy to stick together. So we have a solid top and a solid bottom of gravity, with all that energy in a big lump in the middle. Under unimaginable pressure and in temperatures a couple of million times hotter than the sun! Do you not think that that is a recipe for instability? The author does! The combination of the pressure and temperature would make the energy more likely to be explosive and all it needs is one weak point ( probably around the middle where all the energy is). It would be just like a car tyre that had been damaged against a kerb, it would blow at the weakest point. The fourth dimension, TIME, added to the above scenario gave us the big bang! Mother Nature's laws had it covered all along!
At the point of the big bang the vacuum it created expanded away from the bang epicentre. Within the vacuum were the billions of fragments of the Singularity, most importantly, of vastly varying sizes! As these gravity centres escaped from the ground zero of the big bang, after a billion or so years, they started to cool down and they eventually slowed down. First of all, we must question the slowing down. We know that, energy must be renewed to maintain it's power (turn off the electricity supply and the light goes out). BUT, this was ONE BIG BANG, no renewal, so the only force is the original impulse energy driving the expansion. If that expansion was in another vacuum then there would never be any resistance and, just like our Apollo rocket, it would carry on indefinitely. We DO BELIEVE, however, that the rate of expansion is slowing down, SO, the author believes that the Universe is expanding against an outside resistance (like the vacuum bubble that extinguished the oil well fire). Given this, it is likely that eventually the expansion will stop altogether, at which point the outside resistance will become dominant over the Universe in just the same way as the Earth's atmosphere became dominant over our fire extinguishing vacuum bubble! There is also the likelihood that at the centre of the Universe there is a large black hole. At the time of the bang it is highly conceivable that some of the gravity centres collided and they would have combined. Above the critical size this would truly be a black hole and, at it's size, it would have considerable influence, even to the extent of eventually containing the extent of the expansion. This black hole would probably be the basis of the next singularity!
Within our observations of natural cycles we have seen the 2 equal and opposites each enjoy a time of dominance which are opposed. Night is 12 hours away from midday, winter is 6 months away from midsummer etc. In the Universe cycle GRAVITY gradually ascends from the era of mass to its dominance BUT, as it contains all the energy under conditions not compatible with the nature of energy, gravity holds ultimate power over the entrapped energy and, therefore, triggers IMMEDIATELY the dominance of energy at the point of the big bang. This is clearly unlike all the other natural cycles of nature we know BUT what the author has described is supported by the laws of physics! In the Universal natural cycle the dominance of BOTH constituents is at the SAME MOMENT. After the big bang gravity is diminishing in it's power because it is fragmented and also cooling down so we could say that from bang to mass the ENERGY part of the cycle is dominant! It will be shown that after the cessation of expansion, GRAVITY is dominant.
Now we must address the formation of mass. It took quite a long time
before there was even any particles formed.
Most of the gravity centres were not large enough to continue keeping
their entrapped energy. The only ones that were, are seen in the
Universe as black holes. Those that were smaller than black hole size
began to lose energy and heat. Remember your garden pond, where once
ice had formed it protected the underlying water from freezing? As
the gravity centres moved away from the epicentre of the big bang
they lost heat but that heat was contained around
centre, a bit like the atmosphere is contained around the Earth, and
acted as a barrier to further heat loss. Therefore, the time it took
for the gravity centres to lose enough heat to allow the formation of
particles was quite extended. You now must begin to see that mass is
ONLY A FROZEN MIXTURE OF ENERGY AND GRAVITY!
the laws of physics and chemistry, we know that we can mine iron ore.
We can refine it and work it into a shape BUT
it is brittle as well as it is hard and strong. If we used pure iron
to make, say, railway tracks, the tracks would snap the minute you
put an engine on them. If we contaminate that iron with as little as
half a percent of carbon, we get mild steel. This is as strong as
iron BUT it
ductile. This means that our railway track can flex without breaking
so an engine will sit on the track without breaking the rail. Look at
stainless steels. Twelve percent Chromium makes steel stainless but
still magnetic, 18% Chromium and 8% Nickel makes it stainless, heat
resistant and non magnetic. This demonstrates our ability to mix and
match different elements to achieve the desired result but, in the case
of mild steel even a MINUTE QUANTITY of a foreign material can have the most drastic effect on the properties of the finished product. This basic law
of chemistry lies at the heart of the formation of mass. The
formation process is that the Energy and Gravity mix, on cooling will
form particles which will then form atoms which will then create the
elements in their gas state. On further cooling the gasses condense
into liquids and solids and this is how new planets and stars are
formed. The Hubble telescope has provided excellent pictures of this
Within an atom there are 3 main particles, protons, neutrons
and electrons. Protons and neutrons stick together, whilst electrons
revolve around the proton/neutron nucleus in an orbit. Within a
gravity centre we have only gravity and energy until, with the onset
of cooling, the basic particles asdescribed in the Standard Model are
formed. The author believes that
it is purely the percentage mix of gravity and energy of a sub particle
that determines what type of sub particle is formed. Thes sub particles
then combine to form protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons probably
have a high gravity content and low energy content. Neutrons will
have a near equal mix of gravity and energy and electrons
will be higher in energy content than gravity, hence the reason
that they are dynamic whilst the
other 2 are static. Further, the differences of the exact percentage
mix of gravity and energy at the time of formation would explain all
the particles seen in The Standard Model. So now we have a particle
soup, with particles
all doing the “birds of a feather” thing and
looking for like
particles. This is the basis of the formation of atoms and,
ultimately, the formation of the elements.
variations of the percentage energy content within a
proton would mean that some protons attract other similar protons but
would repel dissimilar protons ( a proton of 80% gravity and 20% energy
would be attracted to another just the same but probably repelled by
one that was 75% gravity and 25% energy). The number of protons within
determines what element type it is! Within the periodic table
Hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1, hence an atom of Hydrogen has 1
proton in it. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8 so it has 8 protons
per atom. So, within the particle soup, as some protons stick with
others and some are isolated, we can see how the atoms of the various
elements are formed. When the soup is cold enough to have all the
particles now combined as atoms, and the “birds of a
principle continues, we see like atoms attracting other like atoms
and repelling all dissimilar atoms and eventually the soup is now an
element soup. We can demonstrate the “like seeking
from looking at our Earth. If you want gold you look in Alaska,
California, South Africa and Australia. Nickel is found in Canada and
Australia. Tungsten is found in Russia. Please bear in mind that
these elements are also found elsewhere on Earth BUT
deposits large enough to be commercially mined. The point is that,
because we see certain areas that are rich in one element but not
another LIKE SEEKING LIKE is
obvious! This sorting out of particles is the immediate forerunner to
the condensation where, because of the extremely high temperatures
involved all mass forms as its gas. Solid and liquid mass only takes
it's natural form (as we see it) as the temperature drops.
from pure gravity through particles and then atoms to
tangible mass is likely to be a couple of billion years, so we could
possibly believe that from the big bang to the first particles took at
least 1 billion years. This
hypothetical as it is based on the believed age of the Earth but it
should be apparent that the Universe was some billion(s) of years
without even a particle of mass. Given this working model, the guys
at CERN, are looking for the Higgs Boson (the
holds the particles of an atom together). It has been suggested that CERN
black holes, however the author believes that these will be very small
gravity centres as they would never reach the size of a true black
LONG WAY TO PROVING THIS THEORY!
The collision of protons under the conditions at CERN will hopefully
break down the protons to their basic constituents. This is where the
CERN guys hope to see the Higgs Boson. Should they find only energy and
gravity they have proved this theory! Similarly, if they find, on
cooling, mass forms which have no connection to Helium (where the
protons are from), then again they have proved a lot of what is said
here! We do have to realise,
that IF a gravity centre can be created and IF
it can be
contained, the introduced and quite artificial freezing may have a
result from that expected because of the time factor. A “fast
freeze” may not be the same thing as a long slow freeze. Just
of cooking, where a stew can be made in a pan but it never tastes as
good as when it is done over a 9 hour spell in a slow cooker! The
length of time taken to cool may be a decisive factor in the end result.
Now for the quest for the illusive Higgs Boson! Let us look at how
nature works. When a bitch has a litter of pups she keeps them all
together in the litter. If one strays she picks it up by the scruff
of its neck and puts it back in the litter. When they are all
together she is in control and can nurture them,
mothers do in nature. Gravity, as the mother of the particles, keeps
them together. They are surrounded by mother gravity. As they
continue to cool down and gather with their like particles, the only
thing available to stick them together is gravity. It does seem most
likely that gravity IS the Higgs Boson! It is, after all, the natural
glue of the Universe!
Every planet, comet etc., ANY MASS in the Universe has GRAVITY at its centre. The tangible mass on the outside is to gravity as ice is to water! Having seen how individual pieces of mass came to be. Now we must consider the order of the Universe. The Universe consists of Galaxies. These are clusters of mass that employ the “like seeking like” OR a Galaxy is such because of some other influence. Remember those black holes? Every Galaxy has one. They are the most powerful gravity centres and they are quite likely to influence the system for a large area around them. Their power of attraction extends to the edge of the Galaxy that they are in. Should we find a Galaxy with more than 1 black hole, then the largest will be dominant.
may explain our Sun. It has enough power to hold together the solar
system. The Sun appears to be a gravity centre that was the exception
to the rule. It is too large to have frozen and become a massive
planet but, also, just too small to be a true black hole. It could be
likened to a BEC,
almost like an interface between a gravity centre and a black hole! Does it attract gaseous matter? Does it absorb this gas
and convert it to gravity? BUT,
it is not strong enough to contain the energy released in the
conversion process. That is why we enjoy light, heat and radiation
from it. We also know that it finds some of this gas to be too
dissimilar to be of use. We have observed a stream of gas being
emitted from the Sun. We know this because it has charged ions which
allow us to observe the phenomenon. Most gasses are not visible so we
would have to find another way to prove that our Sun was indeed
attracting and absorbing gaseous matter. Every time it absorbs more
gas, it gets stronger. In time it may get strong enough to strip the
Earth's atmosphere and absorb it. Of course this will only happen
after the end of the expansion of the Universe. At this point, the Sun
would have grown in strength to be a true black hole, so no more heat,
light and radiation! The only other alternative is that, because it is
losing light and heat by radiation, maybe it is slowly on its way to
becoming a very large planet!
Now let us consider the business of gravity being negative and a consumer. Our Earth spins on the axis between North and South which gives us 1 day every revolution. It also spins in an orbit round the Sun which gives us a year. To spin on its axis without wobbling it must have total equilibrium! It must have equilibrium to maintain a correct orbit around the Sun. YES, the Sun has a major influence BUT a lack of balance within the Earth would fight against that influence and we would see each year vary in the number of days within it because of variations in the Earth's course making it take a longer or shorter route to complete one circuit of the Sun. So, how is equilibrium maintained? Our Earth has gravity at it's centre. That gravity is in it's natural state and VERY HOT! If it were to re-absorb a tiny part of the mass surrounding it, say 2000 tonnes, there will be a release of some energy because of that process. Bearing in mind that the Earth's gravity is too small to be a black hole, it cannot contain that energy! Maybe this is why our volcanoes, having lain dormant for years, will suddenly erupt! They are purely a safety valve for pressure release! Also, if this were happening, there would be a small shift in the equilibrium of the surrounding mass. Is that what triggers an earthquake! The business of the Earth's mass sliding along the tectonic plates is only sufficient movement of the Earth's crust as is needed to reset the equilibrium and maintain stability. Whilst the author appreciates that the vulcanologists and the seismologists know their subject, he proposes that the above is the trigger mechanism that explains the bottom line of WHY we have earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
but what about asteroids and Halley's Comet?
Yes there are fragments of mass, possibly the result of some
collision or, maybe, explosion, too small to be planets but large
enough to maintain as mass. They too MUST have some
their centre or they would most likely break up. The author does
believe that the working model he has presented gives adequate
explanation for these exceptions such as Halley's. Remember our
discussion in the section on the vacuum of why the Apollo spacecraft
was viable because of the vacuum? And we have just mentioned NASA'S
sending of many probes into space. Well, the probes sent to the outer
reaches of the solar system have a LONG way to go!
of getting them there is to use the gravitatiional field on the moon. A
spacecraft going to, say, Saturn will be shot to the moon. There it
just skims inside the Moon's gravitational field enough to change its
direction. It is so little into the gravitational field that it actually skips
off it and is hurtled back into space at enhanced speed. It is a
In reality, the slingshot effect will be achieved in the same way as
described but using the gravitational field of a larger planet in the
small piece of mass be moving almost within
the influence of a black hole, the likelihood is that it will succumb
and be absorbed. IF, however, the face of the black hole nearest that piece of mass is SOUTH dominant and that mass's leading face is SOUTH dominant and it is NOT
within the area of control exercised by the black hole,
combination of that mass's impetus and the polarity similarity
face to face (2 like poles repel one another) might make that
mass skip off the outer edge of the black holes territory just as
space probe skips off the Moons gravitational field. In this way, a comet
is born and it would have increased impetus AND, the effect of the
would bend its trajectory. This would have the effect of imposing a
large arc to that trajectory. As long as there is nothing in its way,
it would follow that trajectory forever on it's initial impetus, just
like Halley's Comet, because there is NO RESISTANCE
and the trajectory would ultimately become an orbit! Yet another
Now, to continue
with the Universal cycle, if the end of expansion
came, say, after 14.5 billion years, it does not necessarily follow
that it would take an equal amount of time to arrive back at the next
big bang. Remember the time cycle of our fire extinguisher vacuum? It
may only take a few hundred, thousand or million years to get back to
the beginning. This all depends on the external resistance outside
the boundaries of the Universal vacuum. What is it? How strong is it?
At the point of no further expansion, that resistance becomes
dominant over the Universe and, therefore may well exert a profound
over it, ensuring that the expansion will be reversed. If there is no
external resistance then the only other possibility is the influence of
the big black hole which was a leftover from the big bang.
Now the Universe may well go into contraction. Galaxies might collide causing the break up of mass into smaller pieces more easily converted back into gravity and, as it is, immense amounts of temperature and energy will be released (think of the atom bomb). Thus, with gravity absorbing this energy and heat, gravity might increase in strength (this is its dominant phase) and might continue to unfreeze its own mass and convert it back into what it came from. This should ultimately create black holes from the amalgamation of the defunct gravity centres. The strong shall eat the weak (natures way) and larger black holes might consume smaller black holes until, ultimately, the last 2 black holes combine and we have the next singularity ready for the next big -->
And there you have it. The author feels comfortable with this. It is so simple, very little to go wrong. It appears to add up and also looks to work, in short, it is logical, observes the way nature works and is within the known laws of Physics and Chemistry. It appears to answer many of the questions that others have posed and the author has considered. All and every intelligent criticism is welcomed as this would show that there is interest in this work. The author is hoping that just a small few of those who are up and coming in physics might read this theory and realise that there is so much potential for it to be accurate. The author has the hope that just one or two of these future stars of Physics will research down the path suggested by The Clements Theory (2009). The author will be dead and gone before any good may come from this work but he still has the hope that somewhere down the line, he did mankind some good.
Summary and Conclusions
In conclusion, the Universe is a natural cycle and, as such, will go from one BIG BANG to the next, therefore it is infinity! Due to the randomness of an explosion there is no likelihood that any 2 Universes will ever be EXACTLY the same, therefore all the Universes together one after another will be a chain of infinities! As a natural cycle, there are only 2 base units, equal and opposite, which are Energy and Gravity and therefore ALL MASS, when totally reduced beyond the atom, beyond the particle will be just that.
In this document there is a reference to CERN. This is the name of an establishment in Switzerland where physicists have built, at a cost of 6 Billion British pounds the Hadron Super Collider. Here they are going to accelerate protons to just under the speed of light before smashing them into one another. Their stated aim is to “recreate conditions just after the big bang”. They also freely admit they do not know the likely outcome, they are doing it to find out. The CERN project has given us so much during its development, not least of which is the internet! They are also looking for the Higgs Boson, which is the glue that holds particles together to form an atom, but the author does believe he has given them a clue as to what the Higgs Boson really is. The author does wish the guys at CERN the very best of luck and sends his hopes for their success. He will be watching with immense interest.
The reference to our Sun being of a size just in between what can cool to form a star and what is just big enough to stay as a black hole is NOT a definition of exact size! This "in between" size will vary from galaxy to galaxy as each galaxy is controlled by its own black holes which will not be a standard size. The recent discovery of a "sun" 2,500 times the size of our own sun is testimony to this statement.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
The first question is, given the Universe is a natural cycle, is this the first Universe or the 31st? Let us consider the nature of the big bang. There is no control in place so the whole thing is total chaos. No rules exist over how many pieces are the result of the bang or what size they would be! What if the bang was a smallish one and very central? We might get 2 massive black holes, one north oriented and one south oriented, with just a few thousand other pieces. Under these conditions that type of Universe would not last too long as the 2 black holes would be attracted to one another very quickly. They would both still be mega hot and therefore very strong and quite dominant. We might be looking at just 1000 years until the next big bang. Thus, each Universe is totally unique! Have any that have gone before or will any that come in the future ever have the conditions for supporting life as in this Universe? What might that life be like?
Consideration must be given here to laws and rules. As previously stated, the
laws of Physics and Chemistry are all related to mass but BEFORE
any mass was formed these rules may not apply We may use them for
guidance in trying to visualise how gravity and energy interact. For
instance, before the Singularity is ready to BANG, something happens which does not appear to add up. With magnetism we know that 2 like poles repel one another. Gravity is NOT
magnetism but it does appear to be similar. As already stated the
author believes gravity to be either north or south oriented dependent upon the amount of swirling going on. The birds
of a feather principle is that all the north polarised gravity will gather
together and all the south polarised will gather together, like 2 armies
marshalling the troops before they face each other. When north and
south are opposed, with all the energy in the middle, that is when the
strength of both sides is roughly equal and they will be attracted
together, compressing the energy in the middle, thus causing the BANG!
The Clements Theory (2009) has proposed how mass forms by the freezing of gravity with energy trapped within it. The proposal puts forward that it is the percentage mix of energy and gravity that controls the difference in the particles formed. That is the simplest format BUT we know that energy manifests itself in many different forms. The author does believe that this also has quite a bearing on particle definition. Energy manifesting itself as radiation would probably have quite a different bearing on the property of the particle than energy manifesting itself as electricity. We also do not know if gravity can manifest itself in multiple forms. The author believes that it has only 2 which are north or south oriented under a swirling soup kind of situation. Are the lighter elements, the gasses, composed of, say, 20% gravity and 80% energy with the heaviest elements, say 20% energy and 80% gravity? The lightest elements, the gasses, are held in the atmosphere around the Earth by the gravitational pull from the Earth's centre, thus they are furthest away from “mother” gravity. Does this suggest that, as we get nearer to the Earth's core, we would find a greater concentration of the heavier elements? In the cooling process, we must remember that we are talking of temperatures of immense proportions. In the earliest stages of cooling everything, even earthly metals, will be in their gas form, and this is where the "like finding like" will happen.
The Clements Theory (2009) did explain that we mine metals according to how cost effective it is to recover them from the Earth. Does that mean that, as we run out of elements, we might find the cost effectiveness of digging deeper becomes more attractive, even given the obvious safety risks? The author thinks not. The author believes that, should future research into the real nature of mass take the right direction as suggested in The Clements Theory (2009), then we may just achieve something along the lines of what the alchemists were trying for! They wanted to turn base metals into gold. WE, however, might think along the lines of developing a “Super CERN” to manufacture whatever we are in need of! By the time oil runs out we should have found a better, cleaner way of doing things BUT we would still need some oil. It would be nice if we could just set the dial and make a couple of million barrels. Science fiction? NOT if we fully understand the origin of mass from gravity!!!! Think of our current “Carbon Capture and Store” policies to cut pollution. WHY STORE? If we capture carbon dioxide we can crack it. The oxygen is free for release into the atmosphere (under strict quantity control) to help combat pollution. We could hopefully use it to replenish the ozone layer but this would be much more difficult due to the nature of ozone. The mountains of carbon would not be a problem. If we made all items like the panels on our fridges, freezers, TV's etc. from carbon fibre we do not need sheet steel any more and it should be cheaper. This would need a shift in political will but the author believes it could be achieved. All very nice but, getting back to basics, as stated at the very beginning, The Clements Theory (2009) is an attempt to describe the Universe in its simplest form. The author readily accepts that the area of gravity freezing to form mass in the way that he describes requires much more detailed consideration and hopes to receive feedback on this subject.
Another very important question might be “What is beyond the boundary of the Universe”? What is the resistance we are expanding against? Isn't this where Newton went astray, needing to bring God into his deliberations? The author does not want to go there at all. The business at hand is to try to comprehend the Universe and that is a big enough task on its own. There is room for a God for anyone who wishes to believe in that but, in every case, it is purely a personal thing, whereas the understanding of the Universe is common to all of mankind and, therefore, the 2 must not be linked!
The last question is also the most important and that question is WHY IS THIS THEORY SO IMPORTANT? It is because, if the basis of the formation of mass is correct, we now know how to save this planet from the destruction being wreaked on it by ourselves! If we can use surplus mass to create all that we need, we can overcome our problems. If we change sand into oxygen, we can fix the atmosphere problems. If we stop raping the earth for metals because we can make what we need from surplus material we stop polluting the earth. We also stop killing off life forms that are threatened by mining. Need I go further?
Einstein's statement E = MC² was intended to demonstrate a relationship between mass and energy. It was extremely clever in that it gave us, for the first time a relationship between Energy and Mass, but it was unlikely to be provable at that time. How could Constant be achieved with the technology of the day? Even though, at that time, the statement was revolutionary, it is now accepted to be too simple a statement to explain it all. Why is it too simple? We know that Einstein worked in his own personal notation that was NOT the accepted convention of the day. We can possibly conclude that Einstein KNEW that mass and energy had a special relationship and his intention with the statement was to stimulate those that came after him to investigate down those lines. It did, and the first collider was constructed in Cambridge in 1932 and now we have CERN. The business of particle collision has given us many of the advances we have made. The Clements Theory (2009), however, now shows the true origin of mass. To put it into notation is NOT a mathematical proposition (at this time) but the undernoted "equation" could be representative of the true nature of mass:
------------------------ = M
(E + G) - T
The above merely says that Energy plus Gravity and then, minus temperature and (probably or possibly) under pressure will create mass. Should we ever prove that mass is purely energy and gravity mixed and frozen, then the value attributed to E and G and, also considering the qualification (energy type) of E may allow M to be replaced with the Chemical Symbol of the ELEMENT to which it relates! This is (VERY SIMPLY PUT) how it may look for gold (achieving the alchemists dream) which has an atomic weight of 79:
----------------------------------- = Au
(21E + 79G) - T
Modern Example of Altering Time in a Natural Cycle
consider another natural cycle. These are ice
ages. Full ice ages are separated by glacials, where the amount of
ice covering parts of the Earth increases and interglacials where it
decreases. The average time between glacial peak coverage is about
150,000 years. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period and
has been for about 10,000 years. This suggests that we have another
140,000 years to go before the next peak and, short term, we will see
the ice caps diminishing. We do believe that, because of pollution,
this is happening at an accelerated rate. If so, then this is an
example of the alteration of the time scale of a natural cycle! How
and why would this alteration happen? It would come from a change in
the temperature of the oceans.
Pacific ocean has a natural cycle called
El Nino which is an abnormal warming of the surface water. This
alternates with La Nina, an abnormal cooling of the surface water.
True to a natural cycle they are equal and opposite, each one taking
a turn of dominance and it seems to be a 4 year cycle. This cycle is
very important to the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE and it's
also the temperature of the Atlantic ocean. It also has a
profound effect on the southern hemisphere. How?
When we have
El Nino, there are often serious
rainstorms and floods in South America and this causes serious
droughts in Australia (because all their rain has already fallen in
South America). OK, how does that affect the
northern hemisphere? The
warmer the water, the more easily it evaporates and is taken into the
lower atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere forms clouds and they
give us rain. Water taken up in the Pacific finds it's way into the
jet stream. The jet stream is a stream of air at around 30,000 feet
up which blows at anything from 100 to 400 miles per hour. It's path
is from just north of the Gulf of Mexico to Northern Scandinavia. All
the time it is moving it is usually depositing its rain into the
Atlantic. It's normal path can be deflected which is why the United
Kingdom had the devastating floods in 2007.
Now we know
that if the temperature in the Atlantic
Ocean were to fall by some 15 degrees C, then that would probably
trigger the onset of the next ice age. That would be a massive
alteration in the time scale of the ice age natural cycle! Could it
HOW? The north Atlantic is very
cold The equatorial Atlantic region is not, BUT,
what about all that ice that is breaking off of the Arctic because of
global warming? It floats south and wouldn't that cool down the
the Atlantic has 2 safety mechanisms. First there is the gulf stream
which is a stream of hot water flowing from the Gulf of Mexico, north
of Ireland and finishing at Scotland. This is the “stage
barrier. The “stage 1” barrier is all the rain fall
from the jet
stream. This is water that is quite a few degrees warmer than the
ocean into which it is falling. In this way the temperature of the
Atlantic is more or less controlled, thanks to the Pacific waters in
the southern hemisphere! Icebergs do not get to flow too far
Now, when all the jet stream rain falls too far south as it did in the 2007 floods, firstly it is falling on land and NOT in the ocean and, secondly, it is falling SOUTH of the gulf stream!!!! Under these conditions and with larger than normal icebergs, the temperature of the Atlantic can fall and the extent of that fall will reach much further south than normal. These are conditions which, over say a 30 year period, could take the Atlantic Ocean's temperature very close to that critical reduction mentioned earlier. This would be the ultimate variation in the time scale of a natural cycle. The author does know that some of the World's experts have said it will not happen but he also knows that the Russian Government has allocated millions of dollars into preparing for an ice age. There is a lot of digging and construction going on there which is linked to the ice age scenario and the Russians might well be thought of as the experts at living in a cold environment.
“There will be one
who sees it all,
he shall be buried
beneath a wall”
Michele De Nostredame (Nostradamus) ©1560(ish)
The above is one of the many quatrains of prediction written by Nostradamus in the middle 1500's. Inclusion of this paragraph does NOT imply any belief by the author in the predictions of Nostradamus. In this quatrain “he” is emboldened because the quatrain specifically refers to a male. “Buried beneath a wall” is always translated by the Nostradamus scholars as insane or not in control of ones thought processes. This reference to the Nostradamus prediction is included because the author readily accepts that there may be some who, after reading The Clements Theory (2009), believe the author to be nuts but be careful before you point your finger, if the prediction is right, then that nut was correct (according to Nostradamus).
If you enjoyed this site or found it thought provoking you might also enjoy a look at a site that I host for a friend called Caustic Bytes. Be careful, there are no punches pulled and those who earn a place on this site should look in the mirror and see FOR REAL what they are looking at!
© Joe Clements, March 2009