The Mysteries of the Universe

Second Edition -- Preface

© 2005, 2006, 2010, 2013 by John P. Wsol – all rights reserved.


Abstract: In science, why has it been so difficult finding a “Grand Theory” that unifies the properties of matter, energy and the forces of nature?   This goal has proven to be a task, so formidable, a quest, so noble, and a challenge, so great, that it soon became known as the Quest for the “Holy Grail of Physics.”

What aspects of cosmology still remain mysteries to mainstream science?

To illustrate this, let’s make up a 100-question hypothetical Cosmology Final Exam and give it to all the PhD students AND their professors.  Let’s make the number of questions proportional to their “consensus” as to what makes-up the universe.  This Final would have 4 questions about atoms, 23 questions about Dark Matter, and 73 questions about Dark Energy.

Just about everyone would get 4 questions right, and guess 23 questions wrong. Finally they would be so stuck on the remaining 73 that they would have to leave those answers blank.  This is the hyper-pathetical State-of-Cosmology today. 

Of course, this illustration is absurd!  Dark Energy is such a enigma, I doubt if we could even make-up 73 questions about it!  As for Dark Matter, this “idea” has gained so much Dark Momentum in the past century, it would be impossible to overcome the Herd Mentality.  Maybe the Aether exists, but everyone was wrong about moving matter experiencing aether-drag, but it could actually exist, but with properties more consistent with what Dark Matter might be?

   This book is about an inspired self-consistent cosmological model that is not surprised by any of these discoveries, and even explains the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly as well as Dark Flow.

What values would such a new, fundamental, and all-encompassing theory have?   

Religious Implications: Would it put to rest, once and for all, debates about the Eternal Creator and His Identity?  Would it finally bring people of conflicting views together?  Or, would, people’s own intellectual pride or peer pressure polarize them? 

Philosophical Implications: Could it sort out philosophical schools of thought that are consistent with God’s wisdom from those which oppose it?   For those who realize that they have been going to the wrong school: would they be brave enough to switch schools? 

Scientific Implications: Such a fundamental breakthrough in scientific understanding.  Could this also serve to focus the efforts of wide varieties of pioneering research?

Economic Implications: What practical applications would such knowledge yield?  A basic, new scientific discovery could spawn a whole series of innovations?   The companies that “cash in” on these ideas would likely become the top stock picks of the decade!    

Can we really hope to achieve a mental grasp of the universe?  Should we accomplish this level of understanding will our new perspective dissolve away all our perplexities?

God’s “Omniscient” understanding would certainly grasp every underlying detail!  For, again, it is written that “He measures the heavens with the span of His hand!” [1]

Therefore, in order to confront the challenges of this noble quest, respect and honor must be given where it is due.  Thus humbly yielding to God’s awesome power, holiness and wisdom.

Thinking outside the Box


o what is the cost?  What do we have to be willing to give up in order to apply Godly wisdom?

#1: Intellectual Pride; One must be determined enough to confront one’s own beliefs and ego.   Could it be that you might be among those who “think” they’re so “sophisticated” that you “think” you are beyond being deceived?  If, so, I’d be willing to bet – you already are!

#2:  Ask yourself: Are they really “my” beliefs or someone else’s? 
i.e. “Everybody knows…” –or-- “In school they taught us…”

#3: Be brave enough to explore new mental perspectives outside of your comfort zone.  In the privacy of your mind, be willing to explore new, outside perspectives.

#4: Our minds have an immense capacity for an expanding vocabulary.  Understanding precise definitions of some new words, as well as “sharpening the focus” some of your existing vocabulary will be essential before you can hope to visual multidimensional physics.

First, identify the limitations that are set within our own minds.  Second, unbelieve these limitations allowing our conscious thoughts to step outside of “the Box” and beyond its limitations.  Now our mental perceptions are able to reach a higher dimensional perspective.  Suddenly, from this higher vantage point, we can see that “the Box” is not a Box at all!  By achieving a perspective above any “inertial reference frame” of Einstein fame and from the lofty vantage point watching space-time expand within the Cosmic Onion model, suddenly you can grasp four-dimensional space-time thus understanding our universe becomes a lot simpler.

What Limits Human Perception?

In attempting to define the limits of the human mind, I had to step back and observe my own mind as an outside observer, looking in.  This introspection caused me to question:  What are the limits of my own mind? And in what “dimensionality” does the human mind exist?  What does it mean to say: “We are human beings?”  Why don’t we ever refer to dogs and cats as “dog beings” or “cat beings”?   Do humans possess a soul or do our souls, for a time, possess our bodies? 

Your body and mind is just a puppet
-- your soul the puppeteer.

On one of many adventurous inquiries into the field of cognitive science I noticed a consistent pattern emerge.  Before I could “really understand” a given problem domain, I had to first achieve a mental perspective above it!   It occurred to me that our physical sensory experience is so immersed in this reality of space-time, that our very thoughts have become part of this problem domain. 

Higher dimensional perspective is the key to understanding.

Achieving an understanding of the universe requires a mental “frame of reference” that transcends space-time, unlike Albert Einstein’s “reference frames”.  The human mind really does have the capacity to do this. By asking more fundamental questions and transcending the threshold of your current consciousness. If Einstein had this knowledge, he would have discovered the Unified Field Theory.   With these foundational new ideas, you can really start to out-think Einstein in terms of perception and creativity!   Though maybe not in raw intellectual determination or mathematical expressiveness.

From Einstein, to Super-String Theory, and Beyond…

Einstein frequently imagined the universe from various “inertial reference-frames” [2] within space-time.   This enabled him to come up with his Special Theory of Relativity (STR) later followed by the General Theory of Relativity (GRT).  For generations, theorists in physics and cosmology have taken up Einstein’s quest with aspirations under audacious titles such as: “Grand Unified Field Theory”, “Grand Unification Theories”, “Super-String Theory” and “The Theory of Everything”.  

This quest has focused mankind’s efforts: to make accurate observations, think deeper, design experiments that help discern between competing theories, improve instrumentation, making even more precise measurements; before thinking some more.  This has produced a wealth of information, but not yet a unified, or complete, understanding.   So scientists continue their search ever hoping to discover “the” fundamental theory that could systematically explain all this information in a simple, beautifully consistent manner.

Whatever this allusive, all-pervasive underlying Truth is, it’s hoped that this would be the final piece to the Great Cosmic Puzzle; to completely understand the laws governing physical existence.  If grasped, it would likely be the key to answering the “Holy Grail of Physics”: to understand matter at is most basic level, to unify the forces of nature and to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Relativity Theories.

 As Stephan Hawking put it in “A Brief History of Time” (emphasis mine):

... if we do discover a complete theory, [3]
it should in time be understandable
 in broad principle by everyone,
 not just a few scientists.
Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people,
be able to take part in the discussion of the question of
why it is that we and the universe exist.
If we find the answer to that,
 it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason
- for then we would know the mind of God.

Dr. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer’s comment about this is perhaps a little more accurate:

I would modify it to say “that if we had a unified, complete theory, [4]
 we would know
a lot more about the mind of God.”

 This book describes a cosmological model that reconciles Relativity with Quantum Physics.  In addition, it also explains in a simple-to-understand way, what matter “really” is, and what “really” causes gravity and electro-magnetism including the wave mechanics demonstrating how and why they work.  But more importantly, it also reveals how to derive this cosmological model from the ancient Hebrew writings of Moses, Isaiah, Job, and hints from the rest of the Bible.

Finally it reveals where God hid the answer to the most profound fundamental question, namely:

 “WHY did He create the universe?”

HOW would He go about expressing
the answer to this question?

In short, you will discover the purpose God had in mind
 when the scriptures say,

“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

It was NOT that we would know His mind,
but rather,
that we would come to know His HEART.

* * *


[1] Isa 48:13 Mine hand also has laid the foundation of the earth and my right hand has spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.  

[2] “inertial reference frame” refers the property of a material objects having a relative position in space-time and a velocity.  “Velocity” has both a sense of speed and direction.  Most people think of 3D direction and speed being distance per unit of time.  But as you work your way through this book you’ll become aware of 4D direction in the context of space-time. 

[3] Hawking, Stephan: A Brief History of Time (1988),  p. 175 (emphasis added)

[4] Schaefer, Henry: transcribed lecture, spring of 1994 at Univ. of Colorado -