3D vs. 4D Perspective

Sorting through scientific observations and theories that contribute important pieces to the Cosmic Puzzle.  While sorting-out some of the presuppositions, so called "facts", that kept these theories from achieving a true cosmological understanding.

© 2006, 2008, 2009 John Wsol  (This page was last updated: 22-Mar-2009 )

25Feb2006: I'm in the process of consolidating description of Genesis Cosmology "Big Flash Cosmology" with a side-by-side comparison with Big Bang cosmologies.

Space-Time: The Cosmos -- the entire span of our space-time domain -- is a 4D hyper-sphere filled with an elastic-fluidic medium.  This medium has had many names through-out history: in the Hebrew scriptures of Genesis, "the waters" above the expanse, "the firmament" of the heavens, in ancient Greek times (Pythagoras) "αιθηρ", "the aether."  By the time Isaac Newton came along (1642-1727) it was called the "luminiferous" ether -- the medium through which light-waves transmit.  In Zero Point Energy (ZPE) experiments its the "vacuum,"  in modern Quantum Mechanics is referred to as "the seething mass of virtual particles."

   Eleven times in the Hebrew scriptures "the heavens" are stretched.  Four of these times it is in the qal-perfect form of the verb -- meaning a completed act.  These are the 3-spatial dimensions plus the 1-time dimension.   The 7 other times it is qal-imperfect meaning it is in-process -- presumably the other 7 dimensions of 11-dimensional Superstring Theory.

   In the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah the heavens are stretched as a "tent to dwell in".  Two ideas here are: (1) the stretched 4D-waters are under negative pressure -- being made "firm" (like a drum membrane) -- thus the term "firmament".    And (2) it's a temporary dwelling place -- quite literally a temporal domain.    This medium has Quantum Mechanical properties of elasticity, inertia and potential energy stored in the 'stretching' of this elastic-fluidic medium. 

3D perspective of a 4D Universe

4D Perspective of a 4D Cosmos

Before the beginning...

Big Bang cosmologists refer to a tiny time period called the "Planck Era" lasting only the first 10-43th of a second of the universe.  They think that Planck particles somehow came into existence during this tiny time-frame. They themselves say "Nothing is known of this period."


   Big Bang cosmologies all start out as, "Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a tiny dot that contained all the matter in the universe, then, one day, it exploded, followed by billions of years of expansion."


 The first thing wrong with this proposed story is that all the matter in the universe simply could not fit into a tiny dot.   If the laws of physics were intact at time=0 then this would be the most dense black hole ever imagined!  Nothing, not even light can escape a black hole.  Therefore there MUST be another explanation for the origin of our universe.

   Isaiah had a really good suggestion stated in Isaiah 40:28:

Have you not known that God, nor heard that God, hid in Jehovah, Creator of the ends of the earth!  [You] can not run out, nor exhaust, nor even exists to penetrate the depths [of] His understanding!

   The heavens where stretched as a tent to dwell in, that is to say, a temporary dwelling place. above the expanse -- the firmament of the heavens.  Genesis 1:2 says: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.)


   Two questions:  One, I wonder if these "waters" are a 4D spherical ocean of what Maxwell Planck might have called "Planck particles" -- that fill the entire Cosmos -- past, present & future?  Two, Is the Spirit of God inducing this oscillation at the Planck-time rate -- about 5.39x1044 times per second?  These question started an ever unveiling of understanding of our universe...

   This is the Cosmic Clock for the Universe.  These pulsating onion-layers subdivide the volume of Space-Time into time-quanta. 

Think of each of these Cosmic Onion-layers as being a very thin holographic film. 

In the beginning...

Big Bang cosmologies have several ideas that, in a general sense, closely parallel how this universe came into being.

  (1) Our universe starts out very very small.

  (2) It starts out VERY INTENSELY HOT!

  (3) It starts out spherical and smooth.

  (4) It expands with time.

   God said, " יהי אור  " (Haya ore) and light became! now now we are riding on this wave-front.  As it expands we experience the forward flow of time.

   As each moment of time (each time-quantum) comes into being the next successive layer records a holographic image of the universe.  So as time progresses forward the 4D volume fills with a kind of holographic space-time DVD or should I say an HVHS (Holographic Video Hyper-Sphere).

Starting with Euclidean geometry -- Einstein allowed space to warp in the proximity of a massive object.  To the right is a classic textbook illustration:

There are two things wrong with this illustration.  First the bottom of the dent should go through the center of the mass.  Second, this illustration does nothing to explain the relationship between the forward progress of time and gravity. 

Where Einstein went wrong was "thinking" that space-time, without the presence of massive objects, would revert back to a flat Euclidian geometry.

Pasted from <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Spacetime_curvature.png>

Space as it exists "now" is really the 3D surface of an ever expanding 4D sphere with "dents" in and around massive objects.  In a general sense I call it the Now-Manifold -- while at very close examination it is the "Unified Field".

   As a grid-like illustration it is a spherical grid with dents passing through the center of massive objects.

   Note when you imagine the grid-lines expanding away from its central depths this illustration demonstrates the forward flow of time and how it creates gravity.

Einstein's  General Theory of Relativity correctly describes gravity as "the manifestation of the curvature of the space-time manifold." 

  Most people misinterpret this as meaning "Gravity slows time."  This is simply wrong -- the cause-effect relationship is reversed!

Genesis Cosmology defines gravity as the manifestation of the time gradient -- that is to say, the slope in time of this ever expanding Now-manifold.  The cause is the "slope-in-time" and the effect is "gravity" -- NOT the other way around.

Imagine standing on the sloped portion, above, while the entire universe expands -- as it does you tend to slip towards the bottom of the dent.

Most people simply can not understand how gravity can slow down time.  But simply "believe it" because scientists say so.  The "flat universe" model is the one commonly accepted -- even among astrophysicists!

When they say "The Universe is Flat" they are talking about the balance between the sum total effect of gravity slowing down the expansion of the universe and the rate that the universe is expanding.

Remember when some people thought the Earth was flat -- could this misconception also apply to the whole universe?

 This is another example of how people, even scientific people, accept the status-quo and just believe what their told to believe.  They don't stop and think about the presuppositions of the scientists who published their "flat universe" findings.   However, they don't realize that their own presupposition is that they "think" the universe without matter is Euclidian -- flat.

Seems that it never occurred to anyone to ask: "If the Big Bang started from a point and expanded outward in all directions, and if the Microwave Background Radiation is so uniform, then wouldn't that mean that space-time -- even before matter coalesced -- would be spherical in geometry?"

YES!  it would and Yes it still IS!

But Hubble's Law states that everything is expanding at a linear rate.  So when they detect a redshift of one galaxy at 0.1 times the speed of light that means it is half as far as one that is 0.2 times the speed of light.

-------------------------------------Don't get me started on Hubble!  There are so many things wrong with his 'law' that it takes 2 chapters of my book to point out an explain them all!

But, I can't just leave you hanging.  So...

First of all there are 4 things that have to be taken into account when interpreting redshift.

  (1) The age of the atoms that emit (or gasses that absorb some of the light while in-transit.)

  (2) The expansion of space (that is the 3D surface of the 4D Now-manifold) while this light is in-transit.

  (3)  The Doppler effect.

  (4) Gravitational Redshift -- when light comes from an extremely massive object.

Age of the atoms?  But the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.  Atoms are atoms, no matter where and when they occur.  How can you say the age of the atoms effect the redshift?

-------------------------------------It is true that the laws and geometry of the universe where established from its foundations. 

   But the laws are not necessarily as we perceive them through the eyes of our science professors. 

First off remember the universe has been and is expanding.  As William Shakespeare put it in his play Tempest Act I Scene II: "What seest thou else in the dark backward and abysm of time?"

In modern English we would use the word "abyss" rather than abysm.   Get a good grasp on this: the further "out" that we "think" we are looking into outer-space -- really the further back into the depths of time we are seeing!  Understand that this means that the universe was smaller, the galaxies where smaller, and even the atoms themselves were smaller.

But every book you see about the expanding universe uses the balloon analogy: where galaxies are like buttons glued on the surface of the balloon.  As the balloon fills with air the galaxies themselves do not expand, whereas, the gaps between them do.  But, they never explain why.

-------------------------------------This is a classic example of "time relativity".  The more densely massive an object is -- the slower it progresses forward in time. 

   All us Earthlings are in a space-time reference frame determined by the rate that time flows forward here. 

The rate is determine by the mass density of the Earth, the mass of and distance to the Sun, and the mass of and distance to the black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (plus the mass of all the stars within our galaxy).

   Everything we can observe or measure is relative to our local reference frame.  So anything that is closer to the center of a spiral galaxy will be aging and expanding SLOWER and anything further from a massive center is aging and expanding FASTER.  The galaxies expand away from the 4D center of the cosmos each at a rate inversely proportional to their mass minus a factor related to the their distances from other masses.

Our "balloon" analogy needs a modification -- the buttons need to expand away from the center of the balloon each at a rate inversely proportional to their mass.   It's like having rubber bands within the balloon all with one end anchored in the center and each with a thickness (stiffness) proportional to the mass of of the button-galaxy rubber cemented to the other rubber-band end.  The more massive they are the slower they expand -- thus creating dents of varying depths in the balloon. balloon.

Still I don't see why the age of the atoms would make one bit of difference.  So they are aging slower or faster what difference would that make on observed redshift?

Here in is where this Genesis Cosmological Model really shines!  It predicts that the size of the atoms themselves grow as indication of the ABSOLUTE AGE of the volume of space that atom is occupying!

No other cosmological model or theory can explain why William Tifft and other astronomers have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is quantized.  That means there is not a smooth transition of redshift -- it seems to occur in increments.

Do you mean that the Galaxies are fleeing at "incremental" velocities?


No that would be absurd!  What you have to do is get "un-indoctrinated" by Hubble's Law.   You need to think outside the Box of Euclidian geometry.  Allow your conscious thoughts assume a perspective outside the 4D Hyper-spherical geometry of Space-Time. 

See the universe as the ever expanding manifold -- a sphere with deep dents in the center of galaxies and gentle depressions around every object.   Deeper dents around large stars and slight dimples around planets.

Remember the whole Cosmos is pulsating at about 1044 times per second.  This sub-divides the expanse of space-time into time-quanta.  3D space is really the surface of one of these Onion-layers.  However, we never see one Onion-layer, but we see a spiral path stair-stepping down into the past as we see light arrive at our current reference frame - Now!

What manifests as matter is really spring-shaped waves propagating from the depths of the past towards the future. As they do they expand very slowly and very smoothly. 

But atoms only emit/absorb light when the electron-waves interact with one of our Cosmic Onion-layers  -- at the same time as the Now-manifold.  This is a probabilistic quantum event.

But what Quantum Mechanic's don't realize is that every once in a while the atoms reach the next threshold and the size of the atom spans the temporal quantum-thickness of one more onion-layer. When this happens the energy exchange is now being exchanged by a quantized factor -- namely the number of time-quanta the electron-orbital oscillations span. From our current perspective looking backwards  into the depths of times-past we see incremental increases in redshift!  This phenomenon has even been observed in the midst of the same galaxy!

   (My theoretical prediction is that the incremental shift starts with the smaller outer most stars and works its way toward the central hub of a galaxy.) 

Wow! I've never heard of this Quantized Redshift phenomenon before.  It does not fit any "Big Bang" model I've every heard of!  No wonder it has never been explained. 

  But this Genesis model seems to explain it so simply and effortlessly!   But where does Doppler-shift fit in?

-------------------------------------Look again at the latitude-longitude lines on our time-warped sphere.

Case 1: Imagine  our galaxy positioned at the intersection of one of the gridlines.   Pick another grid intersection - imagine a galaxy that is fixed at this position.   In this case the relative velocity of these galaxies is zero.    Doppler-effect needs at least one of these galaxies to be moving.  The only time Doppler-effect "occurs" is at the instant that light leaves its source or arrives at its destination.   If the velocities of the galaxies change while light is in-transit it does not effect the light already in-transit.

Case 2: Consider now that the Now-manifold (our yellow-orange grid)  is expanding as the natural course of time.  For it defines the moment of time we call "now."   As time progresses the grid-points all spreading apart.  More so where there is less mass and more expansion and less where there is more mass.  But in this hypothetical case where our two galaxies happen to stay fixed to their grid intersection points -- they do not have any Doppler-shift, yet they are spreading apart because of the natural expansion of space-time.

But if the entire grid is expanding then the galaxies would be moving apart -- something like 2*pi times the rate that the radius is expanding.  So even if they are not "moving" on the sphere's surface they are still moving apart.  Wouldn't that cause Doppler-effect?

Seems that it should,  but the object and its atoms are expanding very-slightly less than the space around it.  In this simplified case the atoms are not moving relative to the ether, so no Doppler effect at all!

In this simplified case the only redshift is cosmological, that is, due to space-time expansion WHILE light is in-transit.

But I thought the Michelson-Morley Experiment proved the ether does not exist!   Everybody knows that!  You know everyone is going to think your some fool to suggest otherwise!

  If the ether did not actually exist then a cubic meter of space would have only one attribute - volume.  However, physicist know that the so-called empty volume of space also has: Magnetic Permeability, the Impediance of the Vacuum, and Electric Permittivity of Space.  For something that some people "think" does not exist, how come it has so many attributes?
 If it did not the James Clerk Maxwells equations would have no meaning, yet they are the most significant contribution to 19th century science.

Now that you put it that way, Dah!  Of course the ether MUST exists!

Then where did Michelson and Morley go wrong?
You see if someone like Einstein had announced the theory of Special Relativity -OR- someone like Heisenberg discovered the "uncertainty principle" BEFORE Michelson & Morley did their most famous failed experiment, then they might have realized their apparatus was simply incapable of detecting movement through the ether.  

 I thought Einstein's explanation that the apparatus literally compresses in the direction of motion so that's why they don't detect the ether.   But, Heisenberg simply stated that one can only detect either the position of a particle OR its momentum, but not BOTH at the same time.  What does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle have to do with it?

First you are right about Einstein and what is called "FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction", but have you ever thought about what it means that the apparatus "compresses" along the direction of motion?  Would that not mean that the atoms themselves compress?


   Also, have you ever experimented with a strobe light in a dark room?

I guess the atoms themselves would have to compress.  Hmm!

Oh, and yes I have experimented with a strobe light.

Did you notice that when the strobe light flashed its tiny fraction of a second that no matter how fast you moved your hand all you saw was still images of your hand.

Oh, now I see!  The pulsating Cosmic Onion-layers are like the flash of the strobe light!   The only time we see a particle is when it intersects an Onion-layer!  The Electron-waves & quark-waves manifest as a series of still images -- there is no drag!

Now you have it!   So let's do a quick recap of what we've discussed so far:

   First the atoms are expanding and periodically reach the next threshold where they span one more time-quantum (Cosmic Onion-layer) when this happens there is a sudden drop in relative redshift.  Second, as space itself (the 3D surface of the Now-manifold) expands so does the atoms within that space so Doppler-effect does not contribute to the redshift due to space expansion itself -- Doppler is only a factor from actual spatial motion.

to be continued...
Hit Counter