+ Everything Else

We who recognize the existence of a stable pattern among natural structures, and who also understand the geometric implications of the proportional constraints on the fundamental physical parameters, are confronted with a new sense of reality that compels us to reexamine everything. In this section I will touch upon a few of the myriad issues surrounding this new knowledge and offer some brief reflections.

• 22 Is Just a Number
• Not String Theory
• Dark Energy + the Big Bang

22 Is Just a Number

Not every drop of water that falls on your head is evidence of rain and not every instance of 22 is evidence that God exists. There are 8 natural structures – hydrogen, titanium, carbon dioxide, liquid water, amino acids, mitochondrial tRNA, human autosomes, and the solar cycle – in which multiples of 22 correspond with extraordinary stability. Because the same pattern is found within a set of proportional constraints for the fundamental physical parameters, which is also consistent with a particular toroidal geometry, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the pattern arises from the underlying structure of space-time. There may be more natural structures that fit this pattern but it is obviously ridiculous to believe that any peculiar instance of the number of 22 is caused by the geometry of space-time. So to be clear, the number of Tarot cards, the psalm from which Jesus quoted on the cross, the date of Kennedy's assassination, and the number of medals awarded to the most decorated Olympic athlete have nothing to do with the underlying structure of space-time nor with any pattern of stability among natural structures and are thus irrelevant to the rational proof of God.

Not String Theory

If the universe is ultimately composed of spinning deformable rings, then there is no need to suppose the universe is also composed of 11-dimensional vibrating strings. But how can string theory be wrong if so many intelligent people believe it is right? Like all scientific theories, string theory rests on certain foundations which must be true in order for its conclusions to be correct. One assumption crucial to string theory is that the units of space and time derived by combining Newton's gravitational constant, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, are absolutely fundamental. The main problem with these Planck units is that it leads to a theory of space-time which requires extra dimensions. Since there is no practical means of probing these hidden dimensions then string theory can never be sufficiently validated, which is a major flaw that invites serious thinkers to reconsider the assumption that Planck units are the most basic units of space and time.

Thus, to avoid the conclusion that space contains more than 3 dimensions, we cannot combine Newton's gravitational constant with the speed of light and Planck constant, which are measured with far greater precision than the gravitational constant. Rather, the alternative view of space-time presented here treats the speed of light as a ratio of space and time whose square is effectively equivalent to the ratio (135)(136)/20². This conclusion follows from the proportional constraints on the electron and proton masses, which are derived in part using Planck's constant. So the length scales most relevant to the fundamental nature of space-time are the Compton wavelengths of the electron and proton, while Newton's gravitational constant is simply irrelevant to this domain and may instead be understood as an entropic effect. The main advantage with this approach over string theory is that it offers a coherent explanation as to how natural structures attain stability at progressively larger scales of space-time, and it does so without invoking extra dimensions. With all due respect to the people who have devoted their lives to studying string theory, it's time to put aside the Planck units and think more carefully about the measurements that define the fundamental parts of matter.

Dark Energy + the Big Bang

If the universe is ultimately composed of spinning deformable rings, then there is no need to suppose that dark energy is causing the universe to expand. When we hear the whistle of a train moving away from us, its frequency is lower than it would be if it were stationary. The faster the train moves away, the lower the frequency of its whistle. Likewise, the light arriving here from distant galaxies is found to be of a lower frequency than the light from nearby galaxies. The further the galaxy, the lower the frequency of its light. It is thus reasonable to suppose that more distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than nearby galaxies. Dark energy is supposed to be the cause of this apparent expansion of space, however this is not the only possibility. If empty space consists of rings that rotate at the speed of light, then these rings do not necessarily rotate at exactly the same rate. Instead we can account for the apparent recession of distant galaxies by supposing that the rings in intergalactic space rotate at a slightly slower rate than the rings within galaxies. This is equivalent to saying that the speed of light is not constant, but depends on its proximity to large quantities of matter (electrons, protons, and neutrons, in general). Because the light from more distant galaxies must pass through greater lengths of intergalactic space, where the rotational rate of the rings is slightly lower, the light frequencies are also shifted lower and distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than nearby galaxies. So the expansion occurs not by an increase in the spatial distance between us and the galaxies we observe but rather by the slower rate of rotation of intergalactic rings.

This has dramatic repercussions for our understanding of the origin of the universe. If galaxies are not actually accelerating away from us then there is no need to suppose the universe began according to the Big Bang theory. Certainly, there will always be some who insist that it's more rational to assume the speed of light is perfectly constant everywhere in empty space than it is to believe it varies, and therefore we should stick to the traditional story that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. But if we deduce by reason that space-time consists of spinning deformable rings then it's easy to see that the rate of spin could be lower in volumes of space totally devoid of matter than in space that contains large quantities of matter. This variation would fully account for the apparent expansion and also imply that the universe always has been and always will be. In essence, it would be a return to the steady-state hypothesis, which was popular among scientists prior to observations of galactic redshift.