Misty Moon

As I sat alone on the edge of my bed

Contemplating events of the day before slumber,

I saw the misty halo of a rising moon … the Flower Moon.

Through my window it looked entangled,

Caught in the branches of a budding Maple,

Tender leaves gently stroking, pushing it along the way.

I wondered if you were watching it too,

As lovers often do.

I wondered if you saw the misty halo too.

Thoughts filled my head as I drifted to sleep,

As I prayed the Lord my soul to keep.

But sleep didn't last.

Vapory dreams living in the past

of a Flower Moon from long ago.

Our love was budding and started to grow.

No branches in its path, no encouragement required.

No mist in the air, our hearts were on fire.

The sky was clear,

No halo from my tear.

Marriage and Family Values

The Lunch

The Harvest

The paintings “The Lunch” and “The Harvest”, by French painter Julien Dupre, capture the essence of marriage and family life in the mid nineteenth century. Most of the people at that time lived a life of simple means with the bare necessities. The husband and father provided for the family by farming or through a trade requiring strength and hard physical labor. There was no indoor plumbing in their homes, no electricity, no air conditioning, or even a refrigerator. The wife and mother cooked over a fireplace, or on a wood or coal fired stove, and the laundry was done in a tub and hand scrubbed on a washboard. And usually, since there were no birth control options except for abstinence, there were several children “hanging on to her apron strings” while she was multitasking. All members of the family would work together to get the necessary things done. During the fall harvest as the days were getting shorter, the work day would last from daylight to dark in the fields, and the Harvest Moon would light the night to continue working if necessary. The wife would bring the lunch meal to the field to save time, and the women folk would even help in the fields at this critical time. This was the life of my great grandfather and grandmother who were born around the same time as Julien in 1851. This way of life, the family values, and the expectations of an individual in the working class society had been passed down for generations so that their grandparents wisdom and knowledge was relevant for them in their lives.

My grandfather was born in 1885, and he was brought up at the start of the machine age. During his life, he saw the transition from hand tools and crude horse drawn tools, to the first gasoline and steam powered machinery for farm use. He witnessed the sinking of the Titanic, the first automobiles, the first airplanes, the first radios, the first flicker silent movies, the first TVs, WWI, and WWII. But he brought up his children, including my father, with the same family values that he was brought up with. That is, it's not necessarily how wealthy you are, or how much surplus amenities over the necessities you provide that counts, it is more about how hard you work, and how much you are willing to give of yourself for your family.

Elaine and I were brought up in an environment where the husband and wife roles in a marriage and family were predefined as in the old ways. The husband and father was the sole provider and protector for the physical needs of his family, and his love for them was measured mostly by his success in achieving that. The wife and mother was the full time nurturer and homemaker, the “cradle rocker” whose loving hands wiped away tears, changed diapers, washed clothes, cooked meals, and kept a clean house. These things were understood and were the culmination of a tradition that had developed over many centuries in order for our ancestors to survive frontier life, political and religious oppression, wars, floods, famine, diseases, and the like. It was what had worked for our survival in Western society for thousands of years. When I was growing up in the fifties, our mothers and fathers lived these roles and instilled these values in us. Early in the fifties when national TV became available, shows like “Lassie”, “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” idealized the roles and reenforced them in my generation. This is the way it was “supposed to be” as portrayed in my preteen childhood, and we didn't question it.

My dad was primarily a sustenance farmer, and being the oldest son, I helped a great deal in the farming operation as was expected at that time. Our house was hand built before the Civil War by a traveling carpenter who went out into the woods and cut trees down, split rails, hand hewed 12”x12”x20' Chestnut sills, and gathered sandstones to make the foundation. There was no sawmill wood in the house. He made the windows and doors and all of it with hand tools from the trees he cut in the forest. It took the carpenter a year to build the house and he lived with the family during the construction. Dad bricked up the fireplace and grates and installed coal stoves for heat. It was my job to keep the coal and kindling stocked for them. We also had a coal fired cook stove in the kitchen that I would have to tend to in the summer. It was my job to milk the cow every morning before I left for school and every night after I got home. And I spent a lot of time in the tobacco patch, hay fields, picking corn for the cows, and tending gardens. Didn't really have much free time, and I relished any that I got.

Maybe it was because my only friend in my isolated preschool rural upbringing was my eleven months younger sister, but I always preferred the girls as friends over the boys, even though I was extremely shy around them. I had a crush on Janet Lennon of Lawrence Welk's Lennon sisters act, and once, even wrote her a letter that she responded to. I did not have a driver's license until after I graduated from high school, and so I could never ask a girl out for a date while in school. I was able to go to the high school dances and dance with some of my classmates though. And I would sit with some of my girl friends on the school bus on the way to school. I always believed and hoped that someday I would meet my Damsel Soul Mate, and we would live “happily ever after”.

Elaine is the middle child daughter of a sustenance farmer family of eight. She worked in the garden and the tobacco patch with all the rest of them, learned how to cook and can vegetables, and do all of the things that farm girls were “supposed” to do. She loved animals of all kinds, had a Siamese cat named “Sid” when I met her. She loved to ride horses, and would ride with her friend Debbie in the summer. She loved spending time alone, gardening and tending to her flowers, and loved to read paperback fiction novels. She was not extremely interested in boys, but did have quite a few chasing after her during her high school years (she is pretty and has a very pleasing and cheerful personality). She did go out on some dates, but never got very serious with any of them. She was pretty much content doing the things she liked, but like most of the young ladies of the time, she was waiting for her “Prince Charming” to ride in on his white horse and rescue her from the farm life drudgery, and they would live “happily ever after” with each other in a world of horses, cats & dogs, flowers, and maybe even Unicorns.

Even though we lived a mile apart (neighbors by rural country standards), we only saw each other once during our school years. This was because she lived in a different county than me, and went to different schools. Also, she was Baptist and I was Catholic, and we went to different churches. So, I really didn't take notice of her until after I returned from Army service in March of 1968 (I was drafted at the age of 19). I was working in my dad's grocery store in our little community of Gatewood right after I got out. Elaine and her friend Debbie came into the store while I was in the back slicing cheese one Sunday morning. She came back to see me, and she took my breath away! I was falling all over myself and I dropped the brick of cheese on the floor … made a complete fool of myself. It was love at first sight!

I had saved enough money while in the service to make a down payment on a new 1968 Camaro, and the first thing I did was to ask Elaine out. Well my Camaro was not a white horse, but it was close enough for her. We dated all summer and fall in a turbocharged romance, and we got married on December 28, 1968 after eight months of dating. I had found my Damsel Soul Mate and she had found her Prince Charming, or so we had thought.

But the 70's were changing times, and our “happily ever after” part was not what we had expected or was led to believe when growing up. With the post war infrastructure developments in transportation and interstate highway systems in the fifties, the explosion in communication technology, and the mechanization of manufacturing and agriculture, it became necessary to learn new skills to survive. The traditional husband and wife roles in a marriage were changing. In the early adulthood years, my generation saw that the old ways weren't going to be sufficient for the changing times. The skills and trades that my father learned from his father and grandfather, and had served them well, was not going to work for my generation. And so I chose a vocation in the “new” technology of electronics and computers. I was fascinated by radios and TV, mechanical calculators (before electronic ones became practical), and all types of electromechanical devices. I thought that if I could master the workings of these devices, I would be “set for life” in a job that I liked, and one that would provide very well for me and my family. I didn't envision that the developments would continue exponentially. I didn't know that I would spend my life in a perpetual education mode just to keep up with the technology in order to maintain a job. And so I went to all kinds of technical schools to learn the “newest” equipment and software in order to maintain them. At first, these devices were expensive and required a lot of technical support to keep them running, and this kept me in a job. But as the devices advanced technologically, they became cheaper and the “disposable” philosophy became prevalent, leaving me out of a job. The equipment outlasted the changing software and features, and my education and job became archaic.

All the while I was struggling to provide for our family and find a lasting profession, Elaine was quietly and patiently minding the “home business” with our six children. She never complained, although I know her dreams of “Prince Charming” and “happily ever after” were destroyed after our first child was born. She must have felt enslaved and longed to be free from all of the motherly responsibilities for a while. I was going to a paid full-time school in Dayton OH for months at a time, and only coming home on the weekends. We would try to have some “quality time” together with the kids as a family, but there is only so much you can do on a weekend. The coup de grace was when my neighbor had to take Elaine to the hospital to deliver our fourth son late one Friday evening. I was on my way back from Dayton OH, it was in January, and it was snowing when I came home to find my sister-in-law watching the other three children. She broke the news to me. I vowed then to find another job so that I could be with them every day, and never leave them vulnerable again. At this point I went to work for GE and started to college taking night classes to get degrees in Engineering and Applied Mathematics so that I could become an engineer. I was still gone from home a lot, but at least I came home every night, and was there if they needed me.

And so, with the help of my employer, I was successful in graduating from college with degrees that allowed me to become an engineer. I was almost forty years old, and my oldest son was a junior in high school. I couldn't have done this if Elaine hadn't been such a strong mother and wasn't supporting me through all of this. In the old tradition, she sacrificed much of her life for the sake of our family. It wasn't until our youngest child started to school that she began to have some freedom to do the things she wanted. She obtained a part time job at the school cafeteria, and we got her a new car. We started to go on vacation trips and have fun together. We never had a honeymoon vacation, or was able to have any “fun time” as a family until then. Mostly it was just a struggle to “keep the wheels on the wagon” before that.

Now, forty eight years after our vows were taken, sixteen years into the twenty first century, and eight years after my retirement, I sit here at my desk and wonder where the time went. Memories of my life seem like a dream at times. I ask myself, would I have made the same decisions in life if I had known what I know now about my future? What advice can I give young folks that would help them in their future life in these changing times?

Well, as a grandpa trying to give advice to my grandchildren and Millennials, I must say that even though the technology has allowed us to advance in communication, transportation, and the like, we have lost sight of the really important things in our society. There is too much greed, materialism, and selfishness now, and not enough real love. Even though we have an iphone with access to world information, and can communicate practically with anyone, family members don't work together as a team anymore and they feel isolated.

Elaine and I didn't have an inkling of what was ahead when we made our marriage vows. We were naive and believed in “happily ever after” then. But when the children came along and the times got hard, reality struck and the romantic fantasy vaporized. It is then that you are tried with the test of real love. Because if you really love your spouse and your children, you will be more concerned for them than you are for yourself. You won't be happy unless they are happy. If you love them, you will do the things you must do, even if you don't like to do them. And this has to be a team effort as it was in the old tradition, or the marriage won't work. There has to be willingness on both parts, and some give and take. Nothing worthwhile is ever obtained or appreciated without work. The traditional roles might have to be tailored to suit your marriage and situation in these changing times.

In the old tradition divorce was not really considered an option. Your marriage vows were “until death do you part, through good and bad ... ” . When you took the plunge, it was permanent and a life time commitment, regardless of how your spouse turned out. There was no “trying it out” beforehand either. To share intimacy and live together without being married was considered an abomination socially. The no divorce idea is not all bad because it does force the two to put in an effort to make the marriage work. But in other ways it forced dysfunctional families to stay together, ones in which abuse and neglect were prevalent. These situations were destructive for everyone involved, and it would have been better if they were divorced.

These days just about anything goes in our 21^st century society. It is now acceptable to have children out of wedlock, to live together and share intimacy with another person without being married, to get married and divorced multiple times … This is the new tradition we are developing for our time now. This is how we have adapted to the changing life styles we have experienced in the last seventy five years. Times are still changing and we will go through more social changes. Our religious philosophies may even change in light of new knowledge about our existence. Ultimately though, we will have to trust our hearts, not our minds, to know love and to find happiness. The main thing is we have to love … it is crucial to our survival … it is our purpose for being.  

Truth

TRUTH

I believe that at the very fundamental level, the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart are one and the same truth! We seek the knowledge of our existence ... Why are we here, or what is our purpose? How did we get here? What are we? We basically are still searching for answers to these questions. This restless quest has driven all of our "advancements" in science and has been responsible for growth of religion and philosophy. Seeing beauty in art and nature, experiencing love and understanding, somewhat gives us a reason for existence. Anytime we see a glimmer of an answer to one of the basic questions, it warms our heart. Science addresses only the physical part of our being and the rules of behavior of the physical part. If you look deeper into the physical, and ask why are there rules of behavior and what controls them, then you have to address the real "what" it is we are, and our purpose for existence. If we can ever truly understand the answers to those basic questions of How, Why, and What, we will have transcended into a higher reality of existence.

Dan Bowlds

Passion

Passion

I was lost, drifting aimlessly without cause,

In the night fog of a dead calm sea!

Until I saw a beacon, flames flaring out and reaching,

From your burning heart, shining brightly for me!

Love is a delicate shoot, constantly seeking light from another soul in order to grow. It drinks its nourishment through roots firmly anchored in the soil of unconditional acceptance of what it is. It is a vine that changes direction and willingly caresses the soul of another without the choking and clinging poisonous tendrils of possession and control. Love, always growing from the tip, is sensitive and ever new. It never ages, does not grow a crusty bark or thorns, nor does it hide its own light from others. It is not angry or hateful; these are its mortal enemies. Left in a nurturing environment, Love will flourish and produce the most beautiful and fragrant blossoms for all to experience. But hidden from light it will wither and die, leaving only a thorny stem for others to prick their fingers on.

Dan Bowlds 3/25/16 

What Are We?

What Are We?

"You are only two things of all possibilities. One portion of you is physical and is bound to the first thing, which is the Universe. The other portion is your intangible spirit, and is similar to the laws that govern the Universe ...”

There is the physical which can be defined as existing tangibly by evidence perceived through our senses. It is also an object that occupies volume in an otherwise empty void of non-universe space. These physical objects have the familiar three x,y,z dimensions and only one other virtual dimension, which is the absolute expansion of universe space.  However, the volume expansion and size of the Universe is invisible to us.  This is because our length dimensions and measurement standards are not constant in the non-universe void into which it is expanding.  Instead, our measuring sticks, and all in it are expanding with the Universe.  So this fourth dimension virtual expansion has to be thought of from a perspective outside of the Universe.  In order to do this we have to use the Universe's initial size as a measurement standard.  By doing this we can tie all things happening in the Universe to its origin.  All actions and properties of matter exist because of the expansion of space. 

All perception of physical objects require an action exhibiting physical properties. The properties themselves are not physical … they do not occupy volume in the empty Void. They are more like what we would call spiritual (things that exist but cannot be detected by our senses directly). Universe space is physical, it occupies volume in the empty Void.   Time is a property of space, and itself is not physical. Time passes only through the creative linear expansion of space. So time is more like a spiritual creation than it is physical. Matter and mass (which is a quantity of matter) is physical, that is, they occupy volume in the Void. Gravity and inertia are properties of matter and are not themselves physical because they do not occupy volume in the Void. But again, gravity and inertia exist by virtue of an imbalance in the creative expansion of space and are more like a spiritual creation. Energy is also a property of matter, and is not physical. It is just the creative volume expansion of Universe space into the infinite Void. We cannot see all of the creative energy that is essentially causing the continuing existence of the Universe, because it is this action that is causing the physical properties that we can observe through our senses. The only energy that we can observe is the result of a change in the rate of creative expansion of space between an observed volume of space and a reference volume of space.

Scientists have been on a “Theory of Everything” quest for a long time. And really, so have the religious philosophers, except that they have made some assumptions based on a belief without any evidence in physical reality that it is true (based on faith). Some scientists have been so bold to say “If we could find the theory of everything, we would know the mind of God”. And yet, they do not acknowledge the existence of God, or anything higher than the physical reality that we can sense with our bodies. I cannot make any sense out of their reasoning when they do not acknowledge anything spiritual, or that which exists but has no tangible evidence of physical existence. What is the “nature” of logic if it is not physical?

In order to see the workings of the Universe in its entirety, we must first have humility and a philosophical view that allows for something greater than ourselves. We must accept that we have limitations in our ability to sense through our own physical inputs, the only inputs to acquire knowledge that exists in our non-physical minds. We must be able to open our minds to other possibilities of existence, and accept some things on faith (without proof) in order to grow in knowledge.

What I stated above about matter, space, time, energy, gravity and inertia, is what I believe is the truth of our physical existence. If based on faith you can accept this as the truth, this knowledge will enable you to find answers to questions you have about universe workings. In essence, this is a “Theory of Everything”. Knowledge of what the Universe consists of and what powers its existence will give you the tools to understand how it works. The depth of your understanding will be as deep as your inquiry, but you will never know the mind of God. This deep realization will come as the depth of your humility grows.          

Copyright Daniel P. Bowlds January 13, 2016

Expanding Space Bubble Universe

Expanding Space Bubble Universe

a Non-technical Description by Daniel P. Bowlds

Measurements and Units of Measure

All that we know in our conscious minds about our surroundings has primarily come to us through our senses. From birth, we have touched and felt, heard, smelled and tasted, and have seen all sorts of objects and things to form opinions of. We learn the concept of distance, how heavy things are, learn about hot and cold things, about loud and quiet things, about light and dark, etc. We have been able to extend our sense of sight artificially with all sorts of instruments; x-ray machines, microscopes, telescopes, atom smashers etc. so that we can learn more about the behavior of the things we can't normally see. With these instruments we have been able to look inside the atom to see what it consists of (somewhat), and we have seen the light from a million galaxies from a distant past time and an unfathomable distance away. We have established means to measure our observations consistently and found that nature seems to follow certain laws as we observe the behavior of things.

The three basic dimensions of measure that scientists presently use for observations are: length, mass, and time. In the MKS system of measurements these dimensions are the Meter, the Kilogram, and the Second. All other expressions used to describe natural phenomena are either unit-less, or combinations of the three basic units. For instance, velocity or speed units equals distance divided by time, force units equals mass times length divided by time squared, and so on. We will now examine the three basic dimensions in the following sections to see if we really know what they are and how certain we are about that knowledge.

1.0 Length Measurements

All of us have used a ruler at times to measure the length of something. Maybe you measured your waist size, or a piece of lumber, but have you ever stopped to consider what it is you are actually doing? Since we are using this concept of length as a fundamental way to observe our surroundings, let's go back and examine this closely.

1.1 Finite Length

When measuring the length of something, the very first thing you unconsciously do is to assume that the object you are going to measure is finite in length (has a beginning and end) and that it is constant (not changing in length while you try to measure it). Then you take another finite and constant object which was set up as a measurement standard length (a ruler), and compare that to the length of the object being measured. For instance, to measure a line drawn on a piece of paper, you have to find the line's beginning and ending points. Then to measure the line in some measurement units, you take the fixed length reference (a ruler) and compare it to the line’s length. The comparison is done in the form of a ratio, and the reference’s name becomes the units of measurement (inches, meters, etc.). These units are then assigned to the ratio.

When we say that a line is 0.1 cm long, what we really mean is that the line starting at zero ends at a fractional ratio of 1/10 of our reference’s one centimeter length. The one centimeter reference is based upon a tangible unchanging standard. Both the reference and the line being measured have a beginning and an end. Typically, we have a ruler which may be multiple standard lengths long, and this ruler has graduations on it in fractional and integer multiples of the reference length.

    Figure 1.1

To the left of 1 we have linear fractional divisions to the finest degree, and we define the beginning of the ruler as zero length. To the right of 1 we have linear graduations in integer multiples of the reference and fractional subdivisions between each of them. With the ruler, we can read off the ratio of the measured length to the reference length directly. For instance, to measure a line, the beginning points of the ruler and the line are placed upon one another (coincident) beyond any discernible fractional increment, and we define this as the beginning point (at zero length). The ending point of the line being measured is matched coincident upon the ruler to the finest degree, and the measurement ratio is read directly off of the ruler.

In addition to measuring actual objects that have length, we commonly use the concept of applying a negative length to represent the length of absent objects (subtraction is the addition of a negative amount). For example we might say the board was two inches too long and we need to add a minus two inch board to it (cut it off) to make it the right length. But remember, this is just a way to adjust real objects, and these negative length objects do not actually exist in the physical Universe.

1.2 Infinity, vs. a Measurable Quantity

“I'll love you forever and ever and ever!” We've heard this before, and some of us have even said it to the ones we love, but what is forever? It's an idea that time has no end, and yet we have experienced nothing in our surroundings, or even in the Universe that would suggest that time goes on forever. Everything we have seen or experienced has a time when it starts and when it ends, stars are born, live and then die. We think the Universe is “exploding” as time passes and that there was an almost zero time when it began. We don't know if it has an end or not for sure, but we do know that it appears to be expanding and “cooling” as though it will die a frozen death. All physical objects (with mass) have a finite size, and so on. So, let's really look at what infinity means in a finite universe. We will start with the “length” concept of an infinite line.

One thing that may not be so obvious is that an infinite line has no beginning or end. Another thing is that if it exists, it always has a positive length dimension. It is never zero or negative. So how can we represent this infinite line in our finite Universe? The answer is, we will only look at a portion of the infinite line and make a scale on it with measurement units that can expand or contract and “slide” along the infinite line to adjust for whatever fixed finite unit of measurements we are using. Here is what an infinite “ruler” might look like:

Figure 1.2

So now to use this in our Universe to describe how our Universe might be expanding into an infinite void of non-Universe space for example, we can pick an arbitrary fixed and constant length standard (a meter for instance), and use that scale on our infinite ruler to measure distances in the infinite space (hereafter called the Void) from our Universe. The ruler still has no beginning or end, but we can start our measurement at the finest point discernible on our open origin, and we can extend the other end as far as we need to make the measurement at a distance from our starting point. In doing this however, we have made the assumption that there has always been a fixed and unchanging meter length relative to the Void that our Universe is expanding into. And that as far as we know, this space might as well be infinite because we cannot see it and see no bounds to it. We assume that the beginning point we have chosen has always been there, even though the objects in the Universe we are measuring may not have been there at one point in time. The assumption that our meter reference is constant and unchanging in absolute space might be false though. If it is changing, then the behavior we have come to describe with an assumed constant length reference is likely to be in error. Our standards may be unchanging relative to the Universe as we observe them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are unchanging to the absolute space the Universe is expanding into. This is something that we cannot see and is outside of our realm of observation. More about this later, as this is the little thread that could unravel our whole notion about how the Universe works.

To begin, let's say that there is some kind of “fabric” to our Universe's vacuum space, (that space in which no matter can be seen, but in which gravity and inertial forces can exist and electromagnetic fields can propagate through). This fabric will be an ether of mass-less, motionless, invisible particles as Einstein described through which light can propagate and standards for space dimensions and time can exist (his May 5, 1920 address at Leyden University). For discussion purposes, we will call them vacuum space particles (VSPs) with given and constant dimensions relative to our measurement standard. These particles are all similar in size and shape, but they are distinct and individual. The particles consist only of a volume of their own unique space material that cannot be shared with any other particle. They are all polyhedrons of the same size and symmetrical shape and are in intimate contact with each other with no “empty” spaces between them, requiring that they must share flat common sides. Matter can exist and move around in the medium, displacing, compressing and decompressing the VSPs as they flow around the moving matter, but the particles themselves do not move. We cannot observe them directly, but we can see evidence of their existence through the actions they cause in observable matter.

Universe vacuum space is three dimensional, but for illustration purposes in a simpler 2D planar model, these particles would only occupy an area in a plane and would be polygonal. There are a few types of polygonal shapes that these particles could take on which would meet that VSP criteria, but let's select the simplest one, an equilateral triangle for our discussion. The VSPs may not actually be that shape as there could be other conditions that they must meet, but it doesn't matter for this discussion because the measurement principles we're discussing will apply to any consistent shape. They just have to be polygonal and symmetrical for 2D space (polyhedron for 3D space). Figure 2.1 depicts a section of 2D space consisting of equilateral triangles. Now our “ether” is “mass-less”, invisible, and motionless, and consists of VSPs. They are the least dense particles in the Universe, so we will assign them a density of one. They will be used as a density reference for all matter in the Universe so that the density ratio of the matter to the space particle density is representative of the mass. Matter in this expanding space bubble Universe also consists of expanding space bubbles, but they are more densely packed and the mass of the matter is represented by density ratio of the object of matter to the VSPs.

Figure 2.1

Objects a and b are chunks of matter, (consists of clumped condensed space particles) have a density ratio of 3:1 (relative to the VSPs), and have properties of mass. Conventionally length measurements have been considered constant and unchanging so that the length of a physical reference standard would remain constant no matter what position it was in or where it was placed in space. So, we can take our “ruler” and measure the distance between objects a and b and also obtain the amount of space (or VSPs) between them. By doing this we have assumed unchanging consistency in the fabric of space relative to our measurement standard. Now might be a good time to mention that our physical measurement standard itself (the ruler) also contains a lot of “empty” space inside the atoms and molecules that it is made of. These spaces must also be filled with our triangular VSPs if we are to be consistent. With this in mind, we can define distance as a certain quantity of space particles along a straight line between two points. So now in “empty” Universe space, a one meter span would contain a finite and constant number of VSPs stacked end to end to make up the one meter distance. Since this distance appears to be constant to us, we assume that this is consistent throughout all of space, even though we rely on light traveling through that very same space at a constant velocity to us to know of its existence (neither of which the consistency we are certain). We assume one meter of space a light year away from us would span the same distance on our measurement standard as it would here in our space. This implies that all space particles throughout the Universe have to be the same size and shape as our local reference in order for the distance to be consistent. And we assume that light speed is constant throughout space even though we don't know how it moves through it.

With this new way of looking at length measurement, what does it really mean to say that the distance between two objects is constant? It means that the quantity of VSPs, or the vacuum particle displacement between two points has remained constant. Also, if the distance between two objects of fixed size was measured, it means that the number of space particles the fixed objects occupy has remained constant as well. In summary we will state the definition of length or distance as we see it:

Distance between objects, or the measurements of the size of objects appears constant to us as long as the quantity of space particles between objects, or the quantity of space particles displaced by the objects remains constant to our measurement standard space particle displacement.

You might be thinking, so what? How does this make any difference in our understanding of length measurements or distance between objects in the Universe? Well there is one subtle thing about this that makes an enormous difference in our understanding of the workings of the Universe. It is possible that the space particles themselves could be expanding relative to the infinite non-universe void. As long as the particles and all objects of matter expand in the same proportions, they would appear to be constant and unchanging in size or in the distance between them. We could not see the particles or their expansion. This is tremendously significant! It means that it is possible for the whole Universe to be expanding from within. Each little particle of space could be generating new Universe space that cannot be shared with any other space particle, resulting in the entire Universe expanding into more of the non-universe space void without our detection. We could still be moving matter particles around in this expanding space medium, change distance between objects, etc. and the background space medium would still be invisible, and appear to be constant and unchanging to us (from a Newtonian mechanics perspective).

Supposing this expansion is the actual case, how would we measure things with our fixed ruler in the infinite 3D void space? Here we will use the “Infinity Quantization Ruler for a Finite Length Subset” mentioned earlier. It will be a handy tool to use when describing the unseen finite Universe expansion into the infinite Void.

Fig 2.2

Fig 2.2 represents such a ruler that has graduations on it for some fixed length standard. It looks like an ordinary yard stick that is finite and unchanging in our expanding Universe. But if it had graduations on it in a length standard that was constant in our Universe, and you were able to see it from outside our Universe in the infinite Void, this ruler would be expanding and sliding along the infinite coordinate axes of the Void that had graduations on it relative to a fixed length in the Void. If our Infinity Quantization Ruler had graduations on it in a length standard that was constant in the Void, and we were able to see it from inside our Universe, it would appear to be collapsing into an infinitesimal point. If we view the Universe from the Void with graduations on the Void Cartesian axis in some constant length standard in the Void, we would see the Universe expanding everywhere like a foam.

What, you might ask, is a fixed length standard in the infinite Void that we can relate to in our Universe? Very good question! There is only one thing we can use, and that is the initial size of the Universe when it came into existence. If we assume that the Universe had a finite size at its beginning before expansion started, then we could use that length as an unchanging reference for our infinite void ruler and coordinate system. Logic says that the Universe is finite because it is expanding and not infinitely everywhere already. Also it is logical to assume that since it exists, is finite and expanding, it also must have had a beginning size when it came into existence. And if we consider that each of the finite and inconceivably large number of space particles in the infant Universe existed in the beginning just before they started expanding, we couldn't even imagine how small they would have been relative to our present expansion level. But just remember that the infinite Void space has no limits in the small or large, and by definition, if something exists in the physical sense, then it must occupy space in the Void. Therefore the Universe and its individual space particles must have had an initial size.

Since we are going down this expanding Universe path, it would be good to point out here that this expansion is one way, that is, the Universe space that each particle generates from within cannot be made to go back where it came from.

Universe Beginning, Expansion, Time, and Energy

Since it is possible that a Universe composed of expanding space particles could exist, let's explore how it would work and how all of the things we see happening in it could be explained with the actions of these particles. We will go for the grand unification prize and say that the entire Universe is composed solely of the space particles. It might be good to give you an overview of where I am going with this before I get into any details, so here goes:

• The entire Universe consists solely of expanding space particles. There are no voids in the Universe where these particles do not exist. The particle expansion comes from an unknown source within each individual particle.
• What scientists think of now as “vacuum space”, areas of the Universe that contains no matter, consists of VSPs (vacuum space particles) that are the most highly expanded and the least restricted in their configuration with their surrounding space particles. These particles are assigned a density of one. They are used for comparison in the density ratio with grouped clumps of particles.
• All matter in the Universe consists of grouped clumps of condensed yet still expanding space particles. The mass of the clumps is proportional to the density ratio (with respect to VSPs). Large clumps like the nucleus of an atom may consist of multiple sub-clumps and even semi-expanded space particles within it.
• All of the invisible traits and attributes associated with the physical Universe; Energy, Time, Gravity, Inertia, Electromagnetic forces, … are caused by the expansion of these space particles and their interaction with each other. There is nothing else in the physical Universe.

Matter Expanding?

A clumped group of lesser expanded space forms matter and has a density greater than one relative to the VSPs. These clumps are still expanding in the same proportion as the VSPs though, so that objects appear to be constant in size. The clumps may be in many different configurations and consist of various polyhedron shaped space particles. These clumps and configurations make up the various types of matter, and the density of the particles in the clumps give the matter a property of mass, the higher the density, the greater the mass.

Okay, now you are wondering what mechanism forms the clumps and how are they held together if the only thing in the Universe is space particles? Another good question, one that will take a bit of explaining! Remember that even though the space particles are identical, they are still uniquely individual and create their own brand of space that cannot be shared with any other particle. I will list a simple set of rules that expanding space particles must follow if the Universe is to consist solely of them:

1. Particles can only expand, they can never contract. The rate of expansion of space particles relative to a fixed reference outside the Universe can vary if the particle's expansion is restricted, but it will always be greater than zero. The expansive forces within the particles are equal, and nothing exists in the Universe to force any created space inside the space particles back to its source.
2. The space of one particle cannot be shared with another.
3. There are no voids between the particles. Particles terminate on each other with flat surfaces and facets of polyhedrons. Each facet of a space particle can only be shared with one other particle. Shapes of the particles can vary in size and number of facets to practically any voluminous flat shaped (vs. curved) configuration in solid geometry.
4. Since facets of adjoining space particles must be coincident, and particle space cannot be shared by space particles, they interfere with each others expansion forcefully. The more densely packed they are, the more they restrict each others expansion.
5. Since the particles must share sides with other particles, and there are expansion restrictions imposed by the boundary conditions with each other, groups of particles may clump together in all types of “Kaleidoscopic” configurations that are more dense than the VSPs.

So, to answer your question about what's holding the particles together, the clumps are being “pushed” together rather than being held together by some adhesive. The only primary force in the Universe comes from the expansion of impenetrable space particles and their actions upon each other.

The Beginning

How did the Universe begin? Well, no one knows for sure yet, or maybe that knowledge is not accessible from our vantage point, but here is one possible way it could have begun. Previously we talked about the Universe having an initial size when it came into existence. It is finite even though it contains an enormously large number of infinitesimally small space particles. For our discussion we will assume that this enormous group of particles was spherical in shape (as it sat in an infinite non-Universe void), and that all particles were cubical and uniform in size. We don't know for sure if the expansion of each particle is continuous or comes in discrete sequential steps random to each other, but we will assume that the particles expand by random steps for now. At the onset of expansion, the particles in the outermost layer had one side or surface exposed to the Void which offers no resistance to its expansion. The only thing resisting expansion of these particles was its contact with other particles on the sides away from the Void. And so these outermost particles expanded in the direction of the Void at a greater rate, and that side of the space particle could have been curved instead of flat. This caused the particles to be highly irregular in shape, and since those particles were not expanding synchronously, the symmetry of the outer layer was broken. “Cracks” in the outer surface occurred, and fissures penetrating into deeper layers were formed as the particle's expansion restrictions changed due to the broken symmetry. These cracks and fissures were made up of oddly shaped space particles, but still they maintained the conditions of one facet in intimate contact with adjoining particles, no voids, etc. And so the infant Universe was wildly and chaotically fracturing and expanding at its beginning, but not from a “Big Bang” explosion, rather it was expanding everywhere from within.

Energy

Now you might be thinking, where's the energy that is “supposed” to be present as described in the super hot “soup” of the Big Bang theory? Well, therein lies the faulty assumption in that theory. With it, all of the energy in the Universe was present when it came into being, and all energy is conserved during the course of its existence. This is because the assumption is made that the energy is causing the expansion, as in an explosion.

Looking at this occurrence from an expanding particle perspective, which I will coin “The Big Fizz”, the volume expansion is creating energy as it happens. There was no energy until the first particles started their incremental expansion. The infant Universe was super dense and at its minimum “size” in the Void. All of the particles in the inner layers were restricting each others expansion in a symmetrical way, and so they remained compact until the symmetry was broken. The particles in the outer layers expanded “rapidly”, or it would seem that way to us because their expansion into the Void was much greater than the inner layer particles.

We are not able to see all of this absolute energy (so called since it is the total energy present in the Universe at any given level of expansion) because we can't see the expansion of the invisible space particles. The energy that we do see is the result of a rate of expansion increase in absolute space between two given quantities of particle space (more about this later).

You're probably thinking, Whoa! Wait a minute! What about the conservation of energy? Well, as it turns out, the energy that we see in our Universe is a result of a differential expansion between two volumes of space. If vacuum space and matter are expanding in the same proportions, the Universe energy being produced (that expansion which is creating it) cannot be observed because nothing we can see is in motion. If however a chunk of condensed space particles (matter) has an incremental change in its volume ratio with space, then we will see this as an exchange of energy. And as it turns out, the amount of energy that we see per incremental change in volume is constant, so to appear that energy is always conserved. But in fact, energy is just a product of independent volume expansion and therefore will always be sufficient and in equilibrium with Universe expansion.

Remember though that Universe volume is in the invisible third order units of absolute space (a quantity of volume in the Void), that is, in some fixed and unchanging units as viewed from the Void as described earlier.

Time:

Now this might have crossed your mind; What about time? And at what “time” did the Universe begin? Well, this is something that might give you a touch of heartburn. Time is dependent on the linear expansion of space particles, and relative to its surroundings. This is the space-time connection. Time has first order units of length derived from third order space volume expansion as viewed from the Void. This means that time is not “universal” throughout the Universe, and is a local observance. This is because time is a record of sequential changes in linear expansion, moving forward and never backward. If expansion slows down in some part of the Universe relative to another, then there will be a corresponding slowing of time in that part relative to the other. Time is a record of changes in Universe linear expansion, and it began simultaneously with the first increment of expansion for that part. There was no such thing as time before the Universe began, and time did not start at zero. Time came into existence simultaneously with the Universe.

Since the cause of Universe expansion is from the space particles expanding, and they can never contract, time can only move forward or slow to a near stop. Time can never go backward for us at our present expansion level. Could we “go back in time” and visit parts of the Universe that aren't at our level of expansion or haven't reached our time in the Universe yet? Don't know, but suspect that we would have to stop our time and let that area's time catch up with us to get there or to see it.

Before I leave this introduction to the relationship between space volume expansion, time, and energy, I would like to address the apparent contradiction of non-compressible space when you see Black Holes “suck” everything in and compact it. It is not a contradiction because it's our perspective that makes it seem that way. If you slow or stop expansion of a portion of space particles or matter, it will appear to be shrinking to us because we and the vacuum space around us are expanding at a faster rate.

So in summary, I will list some of the key elements of an expanding space bubble Universe:

• The entire Universe consists solely of space particles (bubbles). Each particle is unique in that it cannot share its space material with any other particle. These particles might be thought of as Higgs bosons, except that each particle contains a creative source of its unique space material that is forcefully trying to expand the particle. Where the material comes from is unknown, and it is uncertain how long it will continue to supply new space material. 

• There are no voids between particles, so the particles must share sides at all times. Singular particles are invisible to us, and are called vacuum space particles (VSPs). They are the fastest expanding particles, and expand at the speed of light. This expansion rate might not be constant throughout the Universe. A volume of VSPs could be considered a Higgs field. 

• Clumps of space particles can form, and these expand at a slower rate than VSPs. These clumps have properties of mass and are visible in the Universe. The mass is proportional to the density of the clump (relative to a VSP). 

• All actions of the Universe are the result of the expansion of invisible space particles. Our awareness of the Universe's existence comes solely from the visibility of these actions even though we cannot see the space particles or observe them expand. 

• Time passing is a record of linear expansion of space particles in absolute length units (non-expanding units seen in the Void). The space particles can only expand, never contract or completely stop expanding, and therefore time only moves forward or can only approach a stop. 

• Universe distance measurement is no more than a comparison of a quantity of reference VSPs to a quantity of VSPs in the expanding objects that are being measured. 

• Invisible Absolute Energy is the volume expansion of space particles into the Void in absolute length units cubed, and it is continually being created. We cannot see this energy. 

• The visible exchange of energy that we observe is the result of an incremental expansion rate change in a volume of space particles being considered to the expansion rate of a reference volume. 

• In the case of electromagnetic energy, the incremental volume of expansion of the originating object ripples through the VSP medium at their expansion rate (which is the local speed of light). This rate of expansion cannot be exceeded because space expansion is the cause of all physical existence. 

• There was no “Big Bang” in which all the energy of the Universe was created at its beginning. Energy is not “conserved” in the sense now thought with that theory. What appears to us as conservation of energy results from the constant relationship and connection between time (or linear expansion), space (quantity of VSPs) and change in volume expansion rates (Universe observable energy). 

• All forces of action on objects at a distance, such as gravity, inertia, or electromagnetic forces, come from an imbalance in the vacuum space pressure. The space pressure might not be constant throughout the Universe, and may vary according to location and absolute distance from the Void boundary. The assumption that space pressure and resulting actions from it are constant is the cause of the discrepancy in gravitational behavior on the large scale. 

• If the source material within each particle comes from the same place outside of our Universe, and there is a finite quantity of it (likely to be true since it had a beginning), then at some point all expansion will stop. If this happens, nothing of the Universe will exist, and there will be no record that it ever existed. Time as we know it is only a property of the Universe and will no longer exist. 

In my dream and vision in the workings of the Universe, I've gone into the real world where there is just the spirit of all things physical. The facade of solid objects, the physics of their actions, and time, is just an illusion. It is all made up of invisible space bubbles! The only thing making it all exist is the breath of life (space expansion) that is continually being given.If it is true that the Universe is no more than a set of expanding space bubbles as I have proposed, with some work and deductive reasoning, we will be able find out the cause of all physical actions of the Universe. We will see that our Universe is in a constant state of creation, and all things associated with the physical is caused by and dependent upon the creative growth of new space material within each of the space bubbles. If the space material filling the bubbles “runs out”, the time for time will have run out. There will be no matter, energy, gravity or inertia, or even time; no evidence that the Universe ever existed. But even with this knowledge, we will not know where the continuing creation of unique space material within each of the space particles comes from, or why the particles exist in the first place. We still will not know how life began and what causes it to evolve in a physical Universe that is not affected by the spiritual. We will not know how our consciousness developed, or from Whom or where it all came.There is much more in my book “Are We Just Bubbles, An Alternate View of Existence”. In it I show how gravity and inertia work, the reason for the speed of light limit, the cause of electromagnetic forces, how mass equates to energy, cause of entropy, and particle position uncertainty with short increments of time.

It is available from Amazon here:

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Bubbles-Alternate-View-Existence/dp/1329590414?ie=UTF8&keywords=Are%20We%20Just%20Bubbles&qid=1463563351&ref_=sr_1_3&s=books&sr=1-3

or from Barnes and Noble here:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/are-we-just-bubbles-an-alternate-view-of-existence-daniel-bowlds/1123787707?ean=9781329590410

or you can get a discounted book in the USA here:

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DanBowlds

This paper is copyrighted by Daniel P. Bowlds January 2016. It may be printed and distributed publicly if left intact with author credit, or portions quoted with author credit, but it may not be offered for sale by another party.