Revision History :

2004.05.27 – New chapters/hypothesis related to Takyons called No such thing as Nothing, and no such things as a Thing, and thereof Quantum Phenomenons.

2003.10.28 – Appended already existing thoughts about unknown or not understood forces or dimensions.
2003.10.04 – Added links to other relevant info.

2003.08.26 – The expanding universe / the expanding space.

2003.08.07 – Focusing more on “The theory of life”.

2003.07.18 – Adding entries about black holes, everything is nothing and chaos & life.
2003.07.12 – Previous (initial) version spell checked and kept further below for history.
2003.07.12 – New version based on some new thoughts, but based on previous version as mentioned above.

2003.07.12 – New version with some additional thoughts, and old thoughts updated, but mostly like previous version :

“E = mc^2” and “The theory of Life”

This publication is the creation of Finn B. Kjelstrup.  If quoting part of this publication you must refer to the whole publication in
such a way that one can easily find the whole publication.  You may use the whole publication, or parts of it, as long as you refer to this page.
You may not without my permission make or cause economical profit from this in any way.  I am aware
I'm possibly making a fool of my self below, but what's wrong with saying ones thoughts aloud ? ...  Thanks to Stephen Hawking and
Brian Greene for the inspiration given to me through "A brief history of time" and "The Elegant Universe" though I have given up on the later
half way through.   ... I'm sorry if I've completely missed the point ..... any way, it's fascinating :-).
mail

Einstein had his “theory of relativity”. I have my “theory of life”.

The theory of life, and black holes :

Anything that does exist or has once existed, is either a form of life, ore something resulting from a form of life.

Examples :

· · A human bears forth a child, that eventually (may) bear forth one or more children.

· · A tree is also multiplying and thus a life form.

· · The universes are born, living, multiplying and dying, just like any other life form.

If the universe was not a living creature it would not have existed.

I exist because I was born. Many dead things I’ve made exist because of me.

If the universe was not a child of a life form it would not have existed.

If the creation of the universe was a single incident, then the inevitably death of the universe would be as well. It’s even more silly than the story about the child being brought by the stork. And yet scientists say they think that’s how it is ! ? ……. I do think it’s time to get some philosophy into the world of physics, as the still unknown details of physics is no longer probable, one may need to turn to other ways of picking the right paths for ones thoughts.

How does the universe multiply ?

One of many things in our universe that we do not understand is what happens when gravity is as strong as in black holes. Maybe it’s the death of parts of our universe being reborn as a newborn universe at some other place in the multiple universe dimension. That would be just as chaotic as we know life to naturally be. 7/8-2003.

I do however think that black holes have an extension. I also think (guess) they have a critical mass, that they need to reach before they (possibly?) explode into another universe. When you say a block hole has an extension, you are also saying that it must have a huge potential energy. Which is exactly what is needed to make a big bang. Maybe several black holes need to merge/join together before such a critical mass is reached.

Why do I think black holes have a extension ? …. Because everything else has of course. Certain types of stars have their stable condition with a specific density of mass. So does much other mass/matter that we can observe around us. Also the atom. Black holes are thus just a even denser stable state.

26/8-2003.

Time does not exist (and the speed of light):

Everything is always moving or vibrating at the “speed” of light.
Well,... at least everything within an atom is always moving or vibrating at the speed of light.
Light meeting light in the opposite direction has a relative speed of two times the light speed.
The speed of light is always relative to space / to the centre of mass in the area where the light is passing.
I guess I'm saying that space and the centre/average of mass is what's standing still (though one could flip that I guess).
The electron is spinning around at the speed of light.
If you move an atom at the speed of light, the electron is no longer spinning around
because that would make it move faster than the speed of light (vector motion)
It must be standing still, and so will then any events (and what we call time).

All “elementary” particles existing in space are moving at the speed of light. That’s a property of space. Nothing can stand still. If it stands still, it has no energy. Everything is energy. Anything that stands still (relative to space) is breakable / consisting of items that are moving or vibrating at the speed of light, or whatever the nature of space is.

In other words, I’m saying that time and speed is something that only has meaning in a atomic world as we know it. An then I’m also saying that time is not a dimension. If time was a dimension, it would be possible to move along it. And as one know from movies and sci-fi novels that’s something causing a unlimited number of dilemmas, which is in itself evidence enough that time is not a dimension, but something perceived by us humans. We have energy, we have randomness, we have change, but we do not have time.

Everything is Nothing :

If there were such things as elementary particles. Then why can't you crush them ? ... What are they made of ?.
No. What's elementary cannot be a particle. Maybe a single dimension is something elementary.
Maybe energy (between what ? / dimensions ?) is something elementary.
What ever it's all made of, it's not some thing but ..... ?

Chaos is a pre requisite to all Life :

Without chaos (random? genetic mutation), life forms could not have developed.

A really crazy? idea is then : Is chaos (quantum) a prerequisite to the development of the atoms ? … I guess not … or ?

The distribution of types of atoms (matter) in our universe seem to be the same all over. But if life is developing like we know it is (by random? mutations), one will then draw the conclusion that another universe will most likely have a completely different distribution of types of matter, and eventually …………..

Travelling faster than light :

No, you can’t, because when you’re approaching the speed of light the atom ceases to be an atom, and the “particles” it’s made of continue to move at the speed of light (as they are always any way (ref above)).

That is, Not in this! Space. But space can be bent ! …. : So let’s assume we can create negative gravity around our space ship. That is, we can bend space away from us / around us. Let’s further assume we can somehow? Create our own little space in the created vacuum of space(“s”). We could then fly our own space through our normal space. …. – Buuut : if that space vacuum / free space place is created by negative gravity, what then about gravity spreading at speed of light. And,… : In which space(s) is(are) gravity spreading ? Uuuups,… getting too many lose ends here.

M-theory & Shortcuts through universe :
With reference to astronomy may 2002 "When branes collide" ..... :
There is this silly drawing at page 39 "Gravity on the Brane".  Where gravity makes a short cut from one place in our universe to another.  If we have two spots at two different locations in a “ONE-dimensional” "universe" (or should I say string?).  And then introduce a new dimension (which is then 90 degrees on the preceding (first) one).  Then you don't achieve any possibility of a shortcut between those two spots through that new dimension. ... So, NO,... I don't believe in that. ..... But I guess I'm getting a problem with some quantum phenomena I read about once then.  Something about what was once together but now apart still remains instantly connected.  That really sounds impossible.  The only way one could explain that was if all the universes in reality had no extension at all. (The later is NOT a joke on my side).

10/5-2002, 12/7-2003.

The accelerating expansion of the universe :
Think of all the galaxies as spread out on the inner surface of a partially blown up balloon. (That's a two dimensional projection/ model of our universe then) Then blow up the balloon further. Now you have a expanded universe. The strange thing, is that the expansion is accelerating, and I guess nobody has any idea as to what that acceleration is caused by. If the universe is only on the dimension of the inner surface, then what’s blowing or sucking up the balloon would not be directly visible by the universe. Except from the stretching of the universe itself. I just read in a not to serious magazine that 4% of the energy/matter in the universe is atoms, 23% “dark” matter, and 73% “dark” energy. Which lead to this paragraph. What about those 73% being the surface of the balloon ? A expanding surface. I’m trying to say that space itself is actually something and not empty as described in former times. That would be a bit like if the size of an atom was expanding. Except we don’t have a clue ? as to what space is. But we do exist in it. Is galaxies in space like clouds or birds in the air ? Except that we think/thought the air is/was nothing ?

26/8-2003.

There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothing does not exist :
This is related to the above, and was triggered by an article on the expanding universe and the Takyons. I don’t believe in such as thing as nothing. The birds flying up there appear to us as moving around in nothing. The fishes themselves most likely consider the water they’re swimming around in as nothing. Yet we know it is some thing. So the parallel then is the atoms, or particles flying (or swimming) around in “empty” space. It appears empty, but most likely it’s not. So what then if these takyons are not particles, but space it self. A (at least for the “time”) accelerating expanding “sphere”. One could imagine basic structures capable of such a ability, and still being affected (“connected” to) by the gravity of matter. It would have to be a kind of multiplying “particle” in that case. But what should it multiply from ?. As we all know acceleration requires energy !. If that energy comes from our? Space, it will sooner or later cease to exist. In other words, if we consider only our universe the increasing acceleration will some time decrease, and eventually come to a halt. So would an expanding spiral as well, when it finaly becomes a stretched out line. Actually, the later would then, because of it’s kinetic energy, bounce back again, and start to implode ! …. That could then be the beginning of the next big bang. A alternative is that the acceleration gets it’s energy from outside our universe somehow. Possibly that’s more likely, because it would be more chaotic, as we know life are. And as stated further above, I do not believe that something (the universe) can exist without somehow being capable of multiplying, adopting, and capable of long term survival for its own kind.

27/05-2004

There are no such things as a Thing :
We have this (at least among everyday people like me) way of seeing things as things. But looking for the basic building “blocks” of everything, we should NOT look for something. If something is a thing, no matter how small it is, it must somehow be possible to break it apart. At least if that thing extends in a tree dimensional space like as we perceive our surroundings. Thus, whatever the basic building “blocks” are, they can not have an extension. The core can not be some-thing.

27/05-2004

Quantum phenomena is caused by a Thing ? :
as things This quantum phenomenon of a change in one place causing a (apparently random) change in another place. One way one could explain that, is, if we, in our perceivable world, when we see certain “basic” particles, that when we do so, we actually sees only a unlimited small fraction of a thing, a thing that stretches out a long some dimension that we can not perceive. As we all know, if you kick a thing, the other parts of that thing would instantly move along, and that’s what happens in quantum phenomenons ?,… isn’t it ?

27/05-2004

Unknown forces :
Or rather : indications of unknown “forces”.

Healing. The kind that’s caused by a nearby healer, and that causes the object person to feel the healing action/force in his/hear body. True. We are self healing just by our own thoughts and the somatic events resulting from our own beliefs. But that can not possibly account for all of this. It is to often, and to seriously reported, to just be ignored. It is something that we, to our present knowledge, can not measure. Though we can observe the results of something that has happened. I do think that physics could gain a lot if they managed to detect whatever “force” is the bearer in a process like this.

There’s also reported incidents from serious sources (Lozanov/Vanga) that some humans can read the thoughts of a nearby mind. I guess such are more rare. There is also lately, measurements reported indicating such a thing a “global human awareness” (though that’s long distance then). Also this is a indication that there can be yet a unknown “force”. That we can to some degree observe the result of, but not measure/detect.

And then the final question. The consciousness. A computer can compute. But I fail to see that it can be aware of itself. Also in 100 years from now. The human/animal brain is nothing but a computer, though a parallel one as opposed to current serial computer hardware. It’s a bit hard, for a human, to accept, that his consciousness of him/here self is nothing more than internal computations in our parallel executing, darwinisticly evolved computer. Though I do see that as a possibility. Though not the only one. Ref both above and McGinn.

28/10-2003

END.

Previous version as per 2003.07.18 :

Black Holes are :
The other end of a black hole is the big bang (beginning) of a parallel universe (other brane).
As time doesn’t exist in a black hole I don't see a conflict.
If there are parallel universes, it's silly to think there are not many of them.
My theory is that anything that exists, be it a human or a universe, is a life form that somehow regenerates or multiplies in some way.
If not it would seize to exist. Which consequently means it can't exist. If it's not living, or has not been alive,
or has not been created by,... : something living.
Something cannot have been born, if there were no process to bear forth the child.

Everything is Nothing :
If there were such things as elementary particles. Then why can't you crush them ? ... What are they made of ?.
No. What's elementary cannot be a particle. Maybe a single dimension is something elementary.
Maybe energy (between what ?) is something elementary.
What ever it's all made of, it's not some thing but ..... ?

Chaos is a pre requisite to all Life :
Without chaos (random? genetic mutation), life forms could not have developed.
A really crazy? idea is then : Is chaos (quantum) a prerequisite to the development of the atoms ?

18/7-2003.

Space is something.
Space is not nothing. Space is the bearer of most? (or all?) familiar “particles” and/or “radiation”.
Space can be bent (curved actually) (by gravity / mass).
”Everything” (existing) in space is moving at the speed of light.
There’s nothing that can stand still in space, it’s always moving or popping / vibrating at the speed of light.
The electrons are spinning around at the speed of light, and (as a consequence) the protons (etc) are
also somehow vibrating (or something) at the speed of light.
Thus an atom is not really standing still. It just appears that way from our atomic world point of view.
When you move a atom close to the speed of light, the electron is still moving at the speed of
light as well, meaning it’s rotational speed is close to zero, an thus what we call time is
almost stopped, and close to loosing it’s meaning as the atom is about to cease its
existence as an atom.

Travelling faster than light.
No, you can’t, because when you’re approaching the speed of light the atom ceases to be an atom, and
the “particles” it’s made of continue to move at the speed of light (as they are always any way (ref above)).
That is, Not in this! Space.
But space can be bent ! …. : So let’s assume we can create negative gravity around our space ship.
That is, we can bend space away from us / around us. Let’s further assume we can somehow? create
our own little space in the created vacuum of space(“s”). We could then fly our own space through our
normal space. …. – Buuut : if that space vacuum / free space place is created by negative gravity,
what then about gravity spreading at speed of light. And,… : In which space(s) is(are) gravity spreading ?
Uuuups,… getting too many lose ends here.

12/7-2003.

Time does not exist.
Everything is always moving at the speed of light.
Well,... at least everything within an atom is always moving or vibrating at the speed of light.
Light meeting light in the opposite direction has a relative speed of two times the light speed.
But the human observer will of course "see" both travelling close to the speed of light.
The speed of light is always relative to the centre of mass in the area where the light is passing.
I guess I'm saying the centre/average of mass is what's standing still (though one could flip that I guess).
Light has "no" mass, that's why it's just passing "straight" ahead.
The electron is spinning around at the speed of light.
If you move an atom at the speed of light, the electron is no longer spinning around
because that would make it move faster than the speed of light (vector motion)
 It must be standing still, and so will then any events (and what we call time).
Time does not exist.
-
20/11-2001, 12/7-2003.

Gravity.
I’ve just read gravity is moving at the speed of light, which fits “my picture.
If gravity connects "stuff" how come there's nothing connecting ?
To quote Pinocchio : "There are no strings on me" ... But if you looked closer there was !
To me it seems like atoms are all somehow? connected to each other by a “dimension”? called gravity ?
It seems one can always rearrange the relative locations of the atoms,
but if you try to move a atom at the speed of light it seems you are trying to tear it apart from (out of) whatever
interconnects the atoms / the mass / the “matter”.  It's just impossible, at least as long as the particles has mass.
If an atom were moving at the speed of light it would not be an atom any more anyway.  What would it be ?

Gravity Question :
If gravity was spreading in one dimension (along a line) it would not loos any strength over any distance along that line ?
If gravity was spreading in two dimensions (along a paper) it would loos it's strength with the square? of the distance ?
If gravity was spreading in three dimensions (in space) it would loos it's strength with 1/(dist^3)? (sorry forgotten my maths).
But why then do the say it decreases with the square ? ... after all it is spreading through 3 dimensional space ? Or don’t they ?
-
20/11-2001, 12/7-2003.

M-theory & Big-Bangs.
With reference to astronomy may 2002 "When branes collide" ..... :
Our universe has 3 dimensions comprehendible to me.  Now let's imagine it has only 2 dimensions (since
we can only comprehend 3).  Further we then say the third dimension is the multiple universe dimension,
and we call it the 5. dimension.  (even though I don't believe in the existence of the 4. called time, as a dimension).
And then, when two universes collide in the 5. dimension we have the big bang, as they bounce back.
Makes limited sense to me.  But at the same time is incredibly silly and not at all likely (to simple).
Black holes ! ........ : Yes I think they are singularities (ref the book by Hawking).  At least for a limited "time"
while their mass increases.  I guess!, that sooner or later (now I'm using this silly "time" phrase again), they will, like
most other things in our known universe, reach a critical mass, and "explode"? into a new universe ... .
But NOT our universe ! .... I think the final death of a black hole "singularity" is the so-called Big Bang
of a new universe, at another "place/time-span" in the 5. dimension.  .....  No,... I don't believe in that bouncing
of M-theory or Mega verse Grand Slam.  It's too simple, and too limited, and not governed by chaos.  And
I do believe that chaos is a fundamental prerequisite to having life at all.  And I do think Everyting! is living
one way or another, because otherwise it could not have existed.
-
In the same article there is this silly drawing at page 39 "Gravity on the Brane".  Where gravity makes a
short cut from one place in our universe to another.  If we have two spots at two different locations in
a “ONE-dimensional” "universe" (or should I say string?).  And then introduce a new dimension (which is then 90 degrees
on the preceding (first) one).  Then you don't achieve any possibility of a shortcut between those two spots
through that new dimension. ... So, NO,... I don't believe in that. ..... But I guess I'm getting a problem
with some quantum phenomena I read about once then.  Something about what was once together but
now apart still remains instantly connected.  That really sounds impossible.  The only way one could explain
that was if all the universes in reality had no extension at all. (The later is NOT a joke on my side).
-
10/5-2002, 12/7-2003.

Previous version as saved after spell check 2003.07.12 :

E != mc^2

This publication is the silly? creation of Finn B. Kjelstrup.  If quoting part of this publication you must refer to the whole publication in
such a way that one can easily find the whole publication.  You may use the whole publication as long as you keep this statement
with my name along with it.  You may not without my permission make or cause economical profit from this in any way.  I am aware
I'm most likely making a fool of my self below, but what's wrong with saying ones thoughts aloud ? ...  Thanks to Stephen Hawking and
Brian Greene for the inspiration given to me through "A brief history of time" and "The Elegant Universe" though I'm about to give up on the later
half way through.   ... I'm sorry if I've completely missed the point ..... any way, it's fascinating :-).

Time does not exist.
Everything is always moving at the speed of light.
Well,... at least everything within an atom is always moving or vibrating at the speed of light.
Light meeting light in the opposite direction has a relative speed of two times the light speed.
But the human observer will of course "see" both travelling close to the speed of light.
The speed of light is always relative to the centre of mass in the area where the light is passing.
I guess I'm saying the centre/average of mass is what's standing still (though one could flip that I guess).
Light has "no" mass, that's why it's just passing "straight" ahead.
But why is there then a shadow behind me ? ... And why's it reflected by a mirror ?
The electron is spinning around at the speed of light when part of an atom.
If you move an atom at the speed of light, the electron is no longer spinning around
because that would make it move faster than the speed of light (vector motion)
 It must be standing still, and so will then any events (and what we call time).
Time does not exist.
-
20/11-2001

Gravity.
If gravity is instant, how can it then be it seems so far away ?
If gravity connects "stuff" how come there's nothing connecting ?
To quote Pinocchio : "There are no strings on me" ... But if you looked closer there was !
If two balls were connect with a stick they would be "connected".......,
and any force/motion on the one end would be instantly feel able at the other end.......,
but where is the stick ?
To me it seems like atoms are all somehow? connected to each other by a dimension? called gravity ?
It seems one can always rearrange the relative locations of the atoms,
but if you try to move a atom at the speed of light it seems you are trying to tear it apart from (out of) whatever
interconnects the atoms / the mass / the matter.  It's just impossible, at least as long as the particles has mass.
If an atom were moving at the speed of light it would not be an atom any more anyway.  What would it be ?
If gravity was spreading in one dimension (along a line) it would not loos any strength over any distance along that line ?
If gravity was spreading in two dimensions (along a paper) it would loos it's strength with the square of the distance ?
If gravity was spreading in three dimensions (in space) it would loos it's strength with 1/(dist^3) ? (sorry forgotten my maths).
But why then do the say it decreases with the square ? ... after all it is spreading through 3 dimensional space ?
-
20/11-2001

M-theory & Big-Bangs.
With reference to astronomy may 2002 "When branes collide" ..... :
Our universe has 3 dimensions comprehendible to me.  Now let's imagine it has only 2 dimensions (since
we can only comprehend 3).  Further we then say the third dimension is the multiple universe dimension,
and we call it the 5. dimension.  (even though I don't believe in the existence of the 4. called time, as a dimension).
And then, when two universes collide in the 5. dimension we have the big bang, as they bounce back.
Makes limited sense to me.  But at the same time is incredibly silly and not at all likely (to simple).
Black holes ! ........ : Yes I think they are singularities (ref the book by Hawking).  At least for a limited "time"
while their mass increases.  I guess!, that sooner or later (now I'm using this silly "time" phrase again), they will, like
most other things in our known universe, reach a critical mass, and "explode"? into a new universe ... .
But NOT our universe ! .... I think the final death of a black hole "singularity" is the so-called Big Bang
of a new universe, at another "place/time" in the 5. dimension.  .....  No,... I don't believe in that bouncing
of M-theory or Mega verse Grand Slam.  It's too simple, and too limited, and not governed by chaos.  And
I do believe that chaos is a fundamental prerequisite to having life at all.  And I do think Everyting! is living
one way or another, because otherwise it could not have existed.
-
In the same article there is this silly drawing at page 39 "Gravity on the Brane".  Where gravity makes a
short cut from one place in our universe to another.  If we have two spots at two different locations in
a ONE-dimensional "universe" (or should I say string?).  And then introduce a new dimension (which is then 90 degrees
on the preceding (first) one).  Then you don't achieve any possibility of a shortcut between those two spots
through that new dimension. ... So, NO,... I don't believe in that. ..... But I guess I'm getting a problem
with some quantum phenomena I read about once then.  Something about what was once together but
now apart still remains instantly connected.  That really sounds impossible.  The only way one could explain
that was if all the universes in reality had no extension at all.
-
10/5-2002