|
DISCUSSIONS II |
When the binary structure of particles is shown to correct the insufficiencies of wave/particle concepts from the recent past, long-lived mysteries begin to disappear. Super-efficient math based on quantum and probability theories answered problems and allowed correct predictions before a more accurate understanding of particle structure had arrived. Quantum mechanics provided results, but in many cases no understanding of cause.
Particle Physics and
Cosmology are near the point of revealing new theories and perhaps new principles.
It is hoped these new steps will allow conceptual understanding to overtake
and join pragmatic efficiency. Metaparticles has sought to make its contributions
along such lines, from outside the city walls of science.
THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERGENT BALANCE
The following appears in the Six Steps section, Step 5: "Only if the
rotation (of a metaparticle) were stopped would the unifying force coalesce
its two poles into one point of Field intensity, thus returning it to the
original homogeneous Field." In a larger sense, what does that imply?
The implication is certainly cosmic, though far from impending. If the rejoining of its poles would cause a single particle to disappear -- to wink out of existence and be absorbed in the unitary state of being -- the same should apply to every similar particle in the universe. All that is needed would be for the forces sustaining spin-rotation to be suspended. That would destroy divergent balance.
Actually, only the angular momentum force would have to relax, and a Great Cycle would be complete. Existence would again disappear into the permanence of Being.
In such a hypothesis is revealed an instantaneous way to end a universe without any sort of apocalypse.
But would such a withdrawal of a natural law or force imply a purposive agency behind the scenes in a universe?
It could be answered that no occurrence having cosmic implications suggests intelligent purpose to any greater degree than do hundreds of "anthropic" phenomena in the organization of a life-bearing planet, or a hundred more in the human body.
But such concerns are not paramount at present. Whether divergent balance has been overseen like a construction project or established from the recurrence of random events, it is employed here as a principle because certain necessities for primordial exstence have pointed to it again and again. But the clinching need for this simple method of activating pairs of F-energy points, newly translocated from the Field, is the cosmic requirement for "twoness" in founding a universe.
The concept of ontological oneness may be understood as a measureless Field composed of an absolute, indefinable "substance" in which there is primal energy and the potential of all motion, but no differences. Such requirements dictate the forces needed to bring about, from an utterly homogeneous source, the differences, contrasts, and the eventual varieties of matter making up universal existence.
The necessity for twoness in the formation of fundamental particles is traced in the Six Steps section, but without its rationale, which must be given here.
Wholeness, sameness, absolute oneness can produce nothing until a difference -- a "second" of some kind -- comes into existence. Difference requires the space of dimensions and relations in which a universe evolves. When a single point is translocated from the Dynamic Field it must be divided into two halves; otherwise a single point will remain identical with the Field's energy intensity and will immediately be reabsorbed.
That is the prime necessity for twoness in elementary matter particles. Once established, that twoness allows interactions and calls for further forces to sustain binary particle existence.
The Six Steps outline covers the continued development of a bipolar particle that will become an electron. But Step 2, in which the transfer of Field substance between the two "halves" occurs, actually initiates divergent balance.
Intensity is used often herein instead of quantity because the nature of the Dynamic Field is absolute in its own state of Being. It follows, by necessity, that the idea of quantity cannot be applied until it can be expressed in terms of more and less. That is made possible only by the conditions of a relative universe.
In suggesting that the alternative terms infinity, zero, or indeterminable apply with equal mystery to the unvarying energy value of the Field, we can refer to no scientifically acceptable data source. (Which does not imply none exists.) Neither can we find a word suitable to represent quantity in the sense needed. But the concept of 100% might suffice. It is obviously mis-applied in Field conditions. However, when transposed into the conditions of universal existence, it immediately gains a subtle meaning as "100% of an unknowable but necessarily real quantity".
Such makeshift measures do call for explanation, but are not of major importance. Whether or not the complete sequence of Six Steps is precisely indicative or only generally so, what seems of most importance is this:
| Within the
structural context of the theory of metaparticles, matter comes into existence at the moment of intensity transfer from one point-pole to the other. |
THREE EXAMPLES OF INTENSITY TRANSFER
This diagram of three forming metaparticles at Step 2 of the Six Steps illustrates the features of magnitude of divergence between the two poles in terms of intensity (percent of Field substance). Also shown is the basis for ranges of intensity involving the "hyper-intensities" of the greater poles.
For example, using particle B: Since each pole has 50% F intensity before the transfer, its magnitude of interpolar divergence after that event becomes G65 - L35 = 30. Such numbers are unique to the type of particle produced and could provide useful identification.
Recognizing that all greater poles presumably stay within diameter length of their lesser poles, the pattern they form in space will be the same. However, the lesser poles will not be "visible" in the "hyper ranges" where greater poles constitute the perceptible aspect of matter. That rule would logically apply also between greater poles occupying ranges of differing intensities.
In consequence of the above factors, it is most feasible that wherever matter collects in space -- such as in solar systems like ours -- the different ranges of physical and hyper-physical points of F-energy constituting matter interpenetrate each other without interference and without influencing each other in ways corresponding to "visibility".
_ _ _ _ _
As a purely arbitrary example of how greater poles form or contribute to "ranges of invisible matter" in the spatial vacuum, we can divide the greater-pole continuum into three ranges of 16 integers: the low range of "hyper-matter", the mid-range, and the high-range. (The literature of conscient metaphysics gives various numbers of ranges as "planes" or "vibratory" regions.)
Greater point-poles exist in their appropriate ranges. In the illustration above 55%F would be in the low range, 65%F in the mid-range, and 95%F would represent an extreme intensity in the high range. Bear in mind that every G-pole always remains in diametric-force connection with its L-pole, even though they apparently operate in much different conditions of "world-field" matter. How this operates remains for me a mystery.
_ _ _ _
_
It is unfortunate (I said playfully) that none of the above is susceptible to scientific proof at the present time. (Make that during the present era if you prefer.) But the principle of divergent balance is workable nonetheless. It disposes, and positions, and brings into working relationships the "absolute substance" that was only being, maintaining its dynamic stillness. Maybe resting between universes? "Working out the elegant mathematics for the next universe", I seem to hear someone say.
Now consider, if you will, these two cosmologically feasible potentials:
· More dark matter. If for every matter particle in the universe there co-exists an invisible point-pole of very intense energy, when you add them up and do your calculatiuons, you should be able to add a lot more to universal supplies of dark matter. That will be of great help to those cosmologists who are searching for such hidden reserves in order to predict a better outcome for the universe than the starless blackness some media love to write about.
·Matter for other "worldfields". This one is not likely to be thought a fit area for scientific investigation for yet awhile. Such as a generation or two after the interest spheres of substantive and conscient metaphysics have become formally established. But this is about the same "hyper-matter" that pertains to the problem of the expanson rate of the universe.
Just as earth-matter develops into planetary forms and life systems, it is certainly thinkable that the same essential processes have been or will be going on in energy ranges dominated by more intense, greater-pole particles. Now I myself have no idea how such a thing would work, inasmuch as the same particles would be involved in two worldfields -- ours and also the more intense, invisible one where the greater poles of our particles reside.
Now before I am labeled an "invisionary", let me remind you about the wide-minded public -- and also the scientists, worldwide -- who for years have demonstrated at least a novelty interest in multiple universes, multiverses, parallel universes, and for all I know, eight-dimensional multiparallel innerverses. I don't believe even the theorists thremselves have any solid ideas about how such things could work.
I can at least say that any continuum of hyper-intensity worldfields might be an asset to our solar system, providing we can eventually turn into some kind of people who can live there. It would have to be a continuum, range after range composed of different intensities. (Divergent balance is the direct cause of that.)*
Of course the general idea of "better worlds", Elysian Fields, etc., is far from new. But that isn't Metaparticle territory. Metaparticles is about matter. A modest improvement over the old kind, but definitely matter. Consequently we take the position that floating around among misnamed "spiritual clouds of light" -- things like that -- is at present none of our business. We brought up the subject only beause divergent balance seems designed (we could have said randomized as a gesture of goodwill)...designed for making elementary particles that take care of what's needed in two different places at once.
Both why and how are
questions that escape me.
* In the first edition of Metaparticles I attempted, despite the doubtful looks of associates, to prepare a chart (or diagram, or obfuscation) relating the bipolar structure of metaparticles to this "worldfield continuum" idea. It was a disaster. Only a graphics virtuoso, I believe, could do an intelligible version. I was told mine looked like a rat maze with guidelines.
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - and More About Multiverses
During November of 2004 "TIME Magazine" published a very interesting and attractive science feature about multiple universe theories. The theme set off with questioning or wondering if this particular universe could have been designed "just for us".
I presume the "us" was intended to include not only our unruly assemblage of human subraces, but also races within our range of mental vigor throughout the panoply of galaxies. (In my saddened opinion of the present situation, any designers who would produce such a large universe just for us here on earth should be accused of overbuilding at the very least.)
Metaparticles, unable to prove as yet its own theory was designed for our universe, has no business making fun of the details of various multi-universe theories. But it is consistent with polite practice to register also our more composed thoughts about that topic in general, and to compare it to principles on which Metaparticles is grounded.
There are quite a number of such multiple universe theories, so it is best to try synthesizing from what seem to be their motives, characteristics, and uses to science. As for the last-named, my ignorance of any such uses is complete. Characteristics include: (a) Those with natural laws similar or the same as ours, but differing in their unspecified multiplicity. (b) Those with different sets of laws, otherwise like (a) but easier to lose one's concentration on. (c) Parallel universes, meaning that you, yourself, live in parallel with many yous elsewhere. Every optional decision you make here, they make everywhere else; but theirs all turn out differently from yours. (If I have this wrong...well, it's got to be right somewhere.)
Now when it comes to motive -- why scientists recognized as accomplished mathematicians seem to love the concept of multiple universes -- I do not intend in any way to be amused. I am simply being simplistic. It is not at all odd that mathematicians allied with particle physics and cosmology, and probably astrophysics and astronomy also, should put mathematics first in their minds and hearts. (Some seem amazed that it shouldn't always be first in the hearts of their countrymen.) So since they can do the math, they do the math. The results are elegant. They don't claim their theories reflect reality. But their theories could reflect reality; the math says so. All that is needed is a complete set of laws that are as good at creating universes as scientists are at doing the mathematics.
The outlook gets even vaster in theories featuring "the multiverse". Trillions of universes, each with its own laws, and most of them "totally unlivable". Ours turned out to be unusual enough for us to thrive in it.
Superstring theory, it was reported without amplification in the "TIME" article, "provides for multiple universes". It is not criticism, I avow, to state my simple wish: Since Superstrings is very popular among physicists and mathemagicians -- most of whom are said to be working on it in one way or another -- I only hope they manage to provide for this universe. (Rather than one of the totally unlivable ones, I mean.)
Then there is the anthropic principle. This contends that in our universe are found many scientific details suggesting intelligent guidance, without which life couldn't exist. The anthropic principle, supported by evidence, is of course my favorite. It seems to imply a sort of master question underlying the subject of universes, one or many. What, if anything, is aspired to in the development of a universe?
Starting out with tentative acceptance of the widely researched anthropic principle, that question would perhaps mean more if it went like this: What is aspired to in the development of a universe wherein consciousness, which is surely the most important anthropic attribute, evolves along with matter?
Plenty of answers could be given to that question without hesitation, but I doubt many would answer what I have in mind here. I'd like to know not what any individual's belief aspires to, but what natural laws aspire to. (By implication, of course.)
That's getting into conscient metaphysics, no doubt about it, and the Metaparticle theory is not supposed to do that. I have made it too obvious that my imagination is already strained by the implications of metaparticles, but can't stretch enough to include multiple universes. I broached the topic only as a comparison with what are, I think, the remarkable results -- results affecting the structure of this universe -- that divergent balance causes.
Theoretically, of course.
All the preceding leads to the question if there actually exists a cosmic process by which the fundamental particles making up our ponderable, material universe are produced. We have evidence there is such a process. And not only that. The same process produces the more intense points of original energy upon which is based a universal continuum of imponderable fields of matter.*
Yes, matter. Not "spirit"; divergent balance does not create consciousness, or life, or any of the qualities that multi-millions associate with the word spirit. Nothing to be said here infringes upon the conscient aspects of metaphysics. And it is no infringement to claim that neither side of that subject is more important to this universe than the other.
*
See following Addendum
HYPER-MATTER
ADDENDUM, January 3, 2005
In cosmological literature it has been estimated that vacuum energy, dark matter, and normal matter all exist in space. To which category do the greater poles of metaparticles belong?
Cosmological theories have added embellishments since Metaparticles came on the Web. Research indicates the above three categories still apply, although some question remains as to whether vacuum energy is actually a form of matter.
Our theory of metaparticles is definite in stating that the greater poles of all bipolar particles, due to their basic structure, will sooner or later be perceptible in "empty" space in a continuum of ranges based on energetic intensity. In the same way, lesser poles are perceptible in this world's energy range, but should not be so in the higher ranges of what could conveniently be termed "hyper-matter".
Although the high intensity "hyper-matter" of greater poles always remains rotationally paired with lesser poles, they could be considered as belonging in one of those cosmological categories. As one pole of all particles of the spin-l/2 category, the greater metaparticle pole can claim to be "normal" matter. Yet its invisibility here goes hand in hand with its theorized perceptibility within appropriate ranges of intensity. Should that be thought "abnormal"?
We are stating all this as theoretical data, but at the same time taking note that repeatable scientific demonstrations provide evidence supporting the bipolar structure of fundamental particles. There are also alternative theories, developed by particle physicists, paralleling our bipolar principle.
Here are our conclusions:
(1) Though elementary particles (which we claim as actually being metaparticles) have always been known as "normal matter", the high-intensity greater pole might also be considered as a basic component of a higher range of "hyper-matter". It could also be considered "hyper-normal matter".
(2) The question then becomes: If hypothesized by cosmologists as being real, which of their three categories would greater poles fall under?
(3) The second problem in this connection requires identifying the greater pole by logical analysis. This has to be grounded in the metaparticle itself. I will attempt this briefly as follows:
(a) Not including charge, which may accompany it without being innate, either pole of the metaparticle consists of the "absolute substance" of the original Dynamic Field. This substance is not matter until it undergoes the translocation and transfer of Steps l and 2 (Six Steps section).
(b) But once the partial energy transfer occurs, the two metaparticle poles are in divergent balance and can now be usefully referred to as normal matter.
(c) The lesser pole has, since the discovery of the electron, been known as "matter". Such terminology, however, was not applied to the electron through knowledge of its basic nature, but by simply naming it as something traditionally taken for granted.
(d) I doubt the term matter would have also been applied to the greater pole if that had been suspected at the time.
(e) I submit, in conclusion, that if science eventually accepts the metaparticle's greater pole as the choice most consistent with the Rule of Occam's Razor, it will not be analytically incorrect to consider the greater pole as either dark matter or normal matter in a "hyper" sub-category.
(f) Actually the true situation, according to us, is that each pole, taken alone, consists of F substance. But neither pole is ever alone, being strongly linked to its opposite pole.
That combination is what was termed "matter" in the clues of unknown origination which started this venture resulting in Metaparticles.
TAKING BOTH FORKS IN THE ROAD
Synopsis of this topic as presented in the "First Edition" of Metaparticles: It was about the problem cosmologists are trying to resolve concerning the expanding universe. We thought the energies hidden in the greater poles of metaparticles might add significantly to "dark matter" in opposing the forces causing expansion beyond the limits of a cyclic return of the galaxies.
We still think so. But we had no business taking up so many pages with confusing charts and numerical examples using electron-Volts. I am impaired at any math surpassing simple algebra, and Charles Bueker could not be asked to devote the time of an aerospace engineer to such a speculation.
More importantly, it recently impinged upon me that the very first step in the Six Steps (formerly seven) presented only one of two alternative actions beginning the production of matter particles. Since I have proved unable to choose between them, I am going to put both of them in simple diagrammatic form, keeping my comments to an absolute minimum.
Let me just say beforehand that mathematics will inevitably become involved when consideration is given to the hypothesis of "worldfields", made possible by a continuum of matter. Divergent balance implies such a continuum. But as I envision it, science could establish sound evidence for that continuum only by relating numerical values (such as electron-Volts) to the lesser poles of the various particles. Then -- perhaps by some math miracle I can't even imagine -- balancing values for the greater poles could be at least approximated.
(Sorry, but I can't even approximate when the Age of Miracles will begin.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ALTERNATIVE
FIRST STEPS
IN PRODUCING BINARY PARTICLES
The focus in each of the two processes is on the percentage of original Field
energy that will be divided between the metaparticle poles. This factor determines
the range of paired polar intensities which, as elementary particles, are
available throughout a continuum of "worldfields".
The term worldfields is employed in order to avoid the ideas associated with "planes of nature", "higher vibratory regions", and of course "alternate universes". What I would prefer the term to convey would be ranges of particles making possible simple combinations not encountered in the familiar worldfield with which science deals. It is my conviction, however, that "virtual particles", already familiar to particle scientists, represent a sort of outer edge of a worldfield contiguous to this one.
It is hoped that the brief exposition below may be pertinent to the ongoing cosmological search for "dark matter", to offset the "dark energy" thought to be responsible for excessive expansion of the universe.
|
ONE-POINT ORIGIN
|
|||
|
|||
| 1 - | Single
point of Field energy F divides into two equal points (a) and b),
upon translocation to spatial universe from the Dynamic Field. |
||
|
2 -
|
Transfer
of energy (n) from (a), which will become physically perceptible lesser
pole of particle, to (b), the invisible greater pole, will be in a percent
of one-half Field value. |
||
| 3 - | Dark area of lesser pole represents percent transferred. | ||
As a consequence of the equal division of a single point, the increased intensities of greater poles can never reach or exceed l00% of F. Example: If 90% of the energy of (a) is transferred, only 45% of the F energy which left the Field is added to the 50% in (b). Therefore 95% F is nearly the maximum intensity of the particle's greater pole. This means that all elementary particles of the Fermion category (electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc.) would have both poles within the ranges of energy below Field value. |
|||
TWO-POINT ORIGIN
 |
Two points of Field energy F translocate into the spatial universe. Transfer of energy from (a) to (b) in Step 2 can in this case be a percent of the full l00% F. |
| · | The consequences here are much better from the dark matter viewpoint. Using the same example of transferring 90% from (a) to (b), the greater pole comes out with 190% F -- twice as much as with the one-point process. |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Unfortunately, I do not have access to any further "ancient clues" assuring me that a point of l00% F can exist in the spacetime universe. No doubt a "force of separation" could eject such points from the Field into the objective universe, but why should they stay put? At Step 1 they remain identical with the Field and should immediately rejoin it. As has been indicated, on the other hand, Steps 1, 2, and 3 have got to be simultaneous. That way the energy transfer would cause both points to differ from the Field and go into divergent balance before any laws of nature were challenged.
Now about those greater
point-poles that wind up with energy values exceeding that of the Dynamic
Field. It sounds like I have a case there of "more than the ultimate".
But actually, I see no objection from the laws of conservation and equilibrium.
They don't rule out a condition of energy intensity greater than the original
sameness of F; not as long as one doesn't try to add anything to, or
subtract from the total cosmos. (Which term, as said earlier, we employ as
encompassing the universe and also the Dynamic Field from which it comes.)
So the phenomenon of transcendent intensity, or "hyper-F" if you will, abides by the principle of divergent balance. And as a logical possibility it suggests an extended domain -- a domain still based on matter, mind you -- for speculation.
But leaving such things afloat, as it were, let's return to the more pragmatic possibility to be emphasized here. It is just this: If the first step in one alternative origin of matter should eventually be chosen over the other, it will be the experimental findings of physicists and mathematicians that decide which one. I can't guess what such a continuum of particulate matter might theoretically lead to -- beyond validating a new universal source of dark matter. Even if only the greater poles of Fermion particles were involved, they would account for a very large addition to it.
To be realistic, neither
the physicists nor the cosmologists of the future are going to be interested
unless a way can be devised of relating either a scale of electron-Volts,
or particle masses, with the range of intensities available as quantities
or percentages of Field energies in bipolar particles.
But let's say the question does someday come up: Which is the correct first step in the production of a bipolar particle? (Hypothetically, of course?)
If scientific findings regarding dark matter should ever turn in such a direction, here is what I believe to be the answer: If quantities indicated for greater poles are always below F, the metaparticle's one-point process is the first step. If such quantities are always above F, it's the two-point.
To make things more complicated and please theoretical science, why not both? Maybe both processes come into play. Maybe each creates different types of particles.
All very interesting, I'm sure. But only in a benign, metaparticulate future. That goes without saying.
REVOLVING EXIT
Never during the evolution of the Metaparticle Theory did I think it might have something to do with black holes. Then, just in time to wind up these discussions, a rather novel idea appears.
Anyone reading this will be familiar enough with astronomical theory not to need another second-hand synopsis about black holes. We think of them as extreme gravity wells, so intense not even light can escape from them, and thus they can't actually be seen. But black holes are strongly implied by their whirlpool effects, particularly on gas clouds. If gas is pulled inside their "event horizons", it is described in scientific phraseology as having gone "past the point of no return"; "vanishing forever"; "disappearing from the universe".
Now that is pretty serious business, don't you think, when something disappears forever from the universe? Even if it's just gas. I'm not aware that astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists have indulged in much speculation about just where that gas goes. Gone into the black hole, yes; but pray tell where is there left to go when something disappears from the universe?
This is a great opportunity for the multiple universe protagonists to come up with a handy answer, but that really won't do. Especially not when we metaparticle agonists think we have a better one. To refresh memory, we have this theory that everything* starts out as a limitless field of motion-energy-substance; homogeneous, permanent, and responsive to natural laws and forces with which it is in some unknown way imbued. The universe came out of it, we claim.
We've been calling it the Dynamic Field. The concept is consistent with various non-doctrinal aspects of metaphysical ontology. It is not consistent in general with scientific materialism -- which is our worst problem. But aside from all that, metaparticle models do now enjoy some degree of preliminary validation, as reflected in the ongoing progress of particle physics. In short, some of our apples show promise of being edible, even if science does deny the reality (or at least the species) of the tree we say they are growing on.
So -- all for fun and proofless possibilities -- allow me to say there is somewhere for gas and other matter to go on the other side of a black hole's intake horizon. It leaves the universe for sure, but not the cosmos. That includes the universe and the Dynamic Field.
In this theory's section on Six Steps in the Production of Material Particles from a Non-material Field, it is explained that an electron's two poles still consist of Field substance although they are separated and held in relation by the principle of divergent balance. If that balance is destroyed -- as it certainly should be by the tremendous stress of entering a black hole -- those two apportionments of Field substance will merge and rejoin the Field itself.
With us this qualifies as somewhere to go. The same somewhere it came from.
After getting this far, the reader will readily understand why the innate ability of a metaparticle to return to its origin without exterminating itself arouses our enthusiasm. We already knew it could do this, but going through a black hole to do it never occurred to us before. You'll agree it does lend drama.
It also suggests very interesting support for a cosmic cycle worldview that was in vogue with Vedic thinkers around 5,000 years ago. However, regaining interest in such a worldview is a lot easier than gaining evidence for it. We hope that is possible to do.
Meanwhile, two questions of immediate import have come up for answering:
Q: Your metaparticle structure applies to spin-l/2 particles only. What if it doesn't apply to spin zero, one, 1-1/2, and other types?
A: Good question. Somebody will have to do the work before it can be answered. It's too late for us to try doing it by research. Could be that Particle Physics already knows, but has somehow overlooked telling us.
Q: You talk about "cosmic origins" and "ontology" but you never mention the Big Bang which has been intensively studied for years. Why not?
A: I don't think the Big Bang created the universe but just started it developing into what it is today. So I ask in turn, Is the Big Bang a theory of matter creation? Or is it, as seems evident, a theory of matter transformations subsequent to the explosion of a compressed singularity? If any state or form of matter existed preceding the singularity, has the question been settled about where and how and out of what that matter was produced?
*
Everything except, in a certain sense, Cosmic Mind -- which we happily
have
enough sense not to get into.
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
ADDENDUM, July 18, 2004
It has been pointed out that some readers of the "Revolving Exit" topic above, the first writing of which appeared on the Internet on July 10, 2004, might be led to think that exiting via black holes is taken by Metaparticles to be the standard and only way bipolar particles could be forced to coalesce and rejoin the Dynamic Field. On the contrary; it was only very recently that published scientific articles caused us to think of that possibility.
It is basic to the metaparticle premise that any force or encounter sufficient to destroy divergent balance in a bipolar particle would have as its major result the coalescence of the Field-substance quantities no longer held apart. If these should be, for example, 80 percent in the greater pole plus 20 percent in the lesser, the restored total of 100 percent Field value would automatically and unpreventably re-become an indistinguishable point in the Dynamic Field. Since that Field "underlies" the spatial universe everywhere, such a rejoining could as well take place in the snow of Mont Blanc as in the black hole of a galaxy.
_
_ _ _ _ _
_
The Metaparticle theory is part of a cosmic worldview in which there is an endless series of universes ("Great Cycles"), each lasting many billions of years. Though nothing is said corresponding to Big Bangs in ancient literature, there is much to suggest that a number of lesser cycles do occur in each successive universe. It seems most reasonable that these concern the expansion and reversal of the ponderable ranges of matter, while the ranges of higher intensity remain. Such would, in general, fit the hypothesis of Big Bang reconstitution of matter without interrupting the reign of the natural laws of that universe.
Metaparticles VALIDATIONS follows on next page
copyright © 2004