SELFPROOF 0109
- REJECTIVITY
CURRENT COSMOLOGY MODEL
Rejectivity
is not a part of the Current Model as such. However, it is
present in an indirect form as the Pauli Exclusion Principle
which states that
"two identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously".
Rejectivity
should be a direct part of the Current Model because it
applies universally. There are no empirically proven exceptions to
the Rejectivity Law known to this author. Physicists are invited to
seek out sensible exceptions.
The Rejectivity Law is:
one particle cannot occupy a place in space and time
already occupied by another of the same type.
MALTA COSMOLOGY TEMPLATE
- The principal properties of the teel are mass, spin, and rejectivity. (see Argument 0102)
- Every
teel occupies the whole of its place in space and time and therefore
has the height, width, depth, and duration of that place in space
and time. (see Argument 0105)
COMMENTARY
The status of rejectivity in The Malta Template can be summarised thus:
- Rejectivity
is a phenomenon for which there is no current explanation. Its effects
can be observed and measured but the mechanisms that cause those
effects are as yet unidentified.
- Rejectivity is a property of the teel and is therefore also a property of objects made out of teels.
- The effectiveness of rejectivity in objects made of teels varies with the object's teel density and it's structure.
- The Malta Template, in its present form, cannot selfprove without accepting the existence of rejectivity.
While
rejectivity is a generalisation of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle, the rejectivity idea predates the Principle
by a large margin. Under other names it has been with us for
a long while.
The commonest manifestation of rejectivity is as "antigravity". The
notion that gravitational attraction should be countered by
a rejective force can be traced back (at least) to the
philosophers of ancient Greece although for much of this time it was
founded on little more than the "gut instinct" that for every hand on the left there should be a hand on the right.
The need to formally
identify antigravity became more pressing in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries as the idea took hold that the Universe was
eternal and
infinite. John Mitchell's proposal of 1783, suggesting that
gravity left to its own devices would draw everything into a
gravity well from which there could be no escape, seemed to
confirm that a rejective force was necessary to prevent such
a collapse.
Further
confirmation came with the publication of General
Relativity in 1915. Einstein's equations unequivocally predicted
that the Universe could not help but collapse into itself
eventually due to the gravitypull of its own mass. Einstein was
a man of
his time and assumed, along with everyone else who mattered, that the
Universe was
eternal and infinite.
He resolved his dilemma by introducing a rejective force into
his equations which he called the "cosmological
constant".
That
the cosmological constant was an artificial device was obvious.
This led some to suppose that a universal gravitational
collapse was inevitable. In turn, this led
to the idea that before the collapse could take place, the Universe
must first expand. Thus was born the Big Bang Theory.
The
notion
that the Universe might have a lifecycle with a beginning, middle, and
end didn't move easily into the mainstream. There
was a vigorous and
vociferous opposition from those who felt more comfortable
with the status quo. The opponents mostly lined themselves up
behind the
Steady State Theory in which the need for a
rejective antigravity was
fulfilled
by having the Universe continually renew itself from within. It was not until the 1970s
that the Big Bang Theory became the dominant idea and the
immediate need for some form of rejectivity faded away.
Not
that the need faded away completely and in recent years
there has been a major resurgence with the discovery that galaxies
are
not collapsing as quickly as they should in theory. The obvious
answer is that something is preventing the collapse and thus
acting
antigravitationally. The favoured notion is that there is a form
of matter that is invisible to us and it is this, positioned
in the outer reaches of the galaxies, that is slowing the
collapses. (see Chapter 5 - Darkmatter)
The
resurgence was then reinforced by the discovery that the expanding
Universe is now, after many billions of years in which the rate of its
expansion was decelerating, in a phase where the rate of that
expansion is accelerating. This shouldn't be happening in a
Universe
where gravity has its head. In casting around for a
reason as to
why this
is happening, one of the favoured notions is, ironically, a reformed
version of Einstein's
discarded cosmological constant. (see Chapter 4 - Darkenergy)
That
rejectivity keeps resurfacing in new forms is because the need for
something like it keeps cropping up. That the new forms are being continually supplanted suggests that the forms
are not quite right. Rejectivity isn't exactly antigravity. Its manner of working isn't an opposite of the way
that gravity works - its effects are only apparent at
contact and it doesn't work at a distance. Nevertheless, it fulfills the
antigravitational role well enough to resolve (or to
play a part in resolving) all the conundrums that made earlier scientists
feel the need for an antigravitational force in the first place.
The Malta Template doesn't work without rejectivity. Nor does the Current Model.
|