I started writing this book in 2010, that is, ten years ago, and transferred the finished version to the publishing house two years ago. Since then, my views on the structure of our Universe have not changed. Moreover, since I am constantly interested in the opinions of scientists, I began to find confirmation of the correctness of my views on the structure of the Universe in the relevant sections of the Internet. For example, it used to be that our Universe was as flat as a blanket. I believed that our Universe is a flat surface of a ball. And recently, materials began to come across to me that some scientists also believe that our Universe is a ball. Here, for example, is one quote: “Everything that we know about the shape of the Universe may be a mistake. It is possible that our Universe is not flat, but spherical, the authors of a new study say. The results of their work were published on Monday (November 4) in the journal Nature Astronomy.” And another quote: “A team of scientists led by the cosmologist of the University of Manchester, Eleonora Di Valentino decided to cast doubt on the fundamental characteristic of the Universe – its shape. As it known, most of the available astronomical observations speak in favor of a model of a flat Universe, in which light moves in a straight line. Nevertheless, the authors of a new study say that outer space surrounding us can be curved and closed like a giant sphere, and light rays frame this space in a circle and return to the starting point. The findings of the scientists are based on the new data published last year by the Planck mission – the astronomical satellite of the European Space Agency (ESA), which was in space from 2009 to 2013.”

I gave an example about only one of my assumptions, and not the main one.

See how much time has passed since my assumption – 10 years. I have no complicated scientific formulas, only logic. But I am sure that all my other guesses about the structure of our Universe will be confirmed sooner or later.

Basically, the essence of what I wanted to convey to the reader is the amazing paradoxes presented by the constancy of the speed of light. This is truly amazing and, as it were, goes far beyond the limits of ordinary human thinking. When my thoughts on this subject led to paradoxical and completely unexpected conclusions about the structure of the Universe, I had a desire to share my thoughts with everyone who is interested in astronomy as well as I do. I was not at all interested in the commercial success of my book. I just wanted to convey my findings to other people. At first I tried to send the results of my thoughts in the form of articles to various scientific journals. But, since I have no scientific works and corresponding degrees, they politely sent me to hell. Then I decided to try to collect all the results of my thoughts in the form of one small book and publish it. Thanks to Ridero, they took on the job. But the result was zero. That is absolute zero. No one reader wanted to read my book. Bookstores refused to accept it for sale. I guess that, despite the amazing conclusions that I came to when thinking about the constancy of the speed of light, apparently the methods of my presentation are not of interest to readers. Here, after all, it is necessary not only to read my conclusions, but to come to them themselves, based on how I came to them.

I advise English-speaking readers not to linger on the first chapters of the book, but to begin immediately with chapters about time, the speed of light and the structure of the Universe. Especially it should be borne in mind that our Universe is a flat surface of the balloon, and all the stars and galaxies are located on it, like painted flowers on a balloon. And the fact that we see stars everywhere is just an optical illusion, directly related to the speed of light. This is one of the paradoxes of the speed of light and, believe me, is not the only thing that I was trying to tell in my book to readers interested in space. Of course, I am not very upset about my inability to convey to the readers interesting for me discoveries. I’m sure that the truth will strike its way, and what I’m – an amateur trying unsuccessfully to tell readers will be told in 10 to 20 years by scientists who are trying to figure out the structure of our Universe.

Stars carry their light to the Earth for millions of years. A few decades is a moment for the Universe.

Let’s wait.

Foreword

When I was small, I thought the Earth was flat. Everything was simple and clear. Under my feet was solid earth, above my head – the blue dome of the sky. There was my room with straight lines and angles, in one of which I was sometimes put in for excessive curiosity. In the mornings in the east the sun rose and, having made their daily journey, set in the west. At that time I did not pay attention to the fact that the sun was not moving in a straight line. But I was already a little embarrassed by the fact that the horizon line was a circle. It would be more familiar if it were a rectangle, like a grandmother’s potato field. Then I could not imagine that there could be another unusual world in which there is not a single straight line. I thought this was possible only in the English funny nursery rhyme:

There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.

He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile.

He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse.

And they all lived together in a little crooked house.

Then, when books began to fall into my hands, I remembered two pictures. On one was depicted the Earth in the form of a bowl, which was held by three elephants, and on the other – a traveler who reached the edge of the Earth where the firmament converges with the Earth, and he accidentally or out of curiosity pierced the firmament with his staff.

When I went to school, the first disappointment came. The teacher said that our Earth has the shape of a ball and showed the globe. I was surprised to see the globe and noticed that it rests on a stand. I immediately had a question, and on what then holds the Earth. The fact that the Earth hangs in a void, where there is neither top nor bottom and no place to fall, this answer did not suit me. When in a circus a magician shows that an object hanging in the air does not hold onto anything, you understand perfectly well: this is just a trick and you are very interested in finding out the clue …

I remembered the multicolored balls on the Christmas tree. They were hung on threads tied to green branches. And when I tried to imagine a beautiful blue sphere of the Earth, hanging alone by itself, not attached to anything among the vast expanses of space, I experienced psychological discomfort. I was embraced by the cold of loneliness.

Every time I had the feeling that for some unknown reason we can see not what it really is. There is a mystery behind the balls of the planets of the solar system. Behind every planet there is something invisible to us. Space objects should have some kind of support, let it not be elephants and turtles, as the ancients believed, but something more modern. The lack of support is unnatural for our soul. And each time there was a desire to correct this inconvenience. It seemed to be a little tense and everything would fall into place, the world would become familiar to the world of straight lines …

It is good that ordinary life took place in the familiar world of three dimensions. And time passed measuredly: minute by minute, day after day. True, the dial was round. But I didn’t pay much attention to this, as there are many circles in life. And I was very surprised when I later learned that time may also have an unusual appearance. A certain physicist Einstein argued that time can go at different speeds, and it is associated with length, width and height. It was incredible: tie the minutes to centimeters! It is like asking: how is a fish different from water? But most of all I was struck by the speed of light. Einstein asserted that it has a constant value, and nothing can exceed it. Can you imagine what speed means? This is a variable. You drive a car and constantly change the speed depending on the traffic situation. And then a certain mechanic Einstein tied the gas pedal on your car so that you can not use it and began to assert that this is the speed. And plus to this, you still can not overtake anyone, because everyone has the same speed as you. I do not like when there is something that I do not understand. I do not like uncertainty. This creates emotional discomfort. Everywhere should be let not straight lines, but clear lines separating one phenomenon from another, so that everything is not randomly dumped in one pile. There must be some logic in the structure of the world. In such cases, I try to figure out what’s what, put everything on the shelves, find some logic and calm down. After all, when you understand the essence of things or events, a feeling of freedom appears in your soul. You seem to see not only with your eyes, but with your mind. You begin to understand what the consequences of one or another of your actions will be and you can choose. You get the freedom to choose. You get room to maneuver. Then comes peace of mind and confidence in your actions. But it often happens that you do not understand what is going on around you, but different circumstances, most often lack of time, prevent you from understanding the problems, and you have to live with this feeling of misunderstanding. But since all these absurdities of our physical world were somewhere far away, outside the Earth and our lives were not directly affected, it was possible simply not to think about them until some time. It was possible to postpone the solution of these cosmic problems until better times, especially since there was an urgent, almost insoluble problem of an acute shortage of this very time. From this point of view, it can be considered a blessing that there are moments of forced inaction in life. Cervantes, for example, wrote the fat novel Don Quixote while in prison. I, too it was not from a good life that I found myself in a situation where for a long time I couldn’t do anything, just think. I then worked as a security guard at the bank and, according to the instructions, did nothing, only analyzed the situation around. When the entrance doors were closing behind the last client, I could even think about everything. That’s when I decided to deal with the cosmic inconsistencies. By the way, I once worked in the police and worked there for no less than seven years, and this upcoming disassembly rather resembled the most real detective investigation. In general, I decided to deal, finally, with all this.

Since I had to deal with a whole complex of interrelated problems, I decided to act according to a certain method: take one problem and deal with it until the investigation rests on another unresolved problem, then switch to solving the newly encountered problem and only deciding her to return to the previous one. Thus, it was supposed to repeatedly return to the same problem as new information was received. The next point: I decided to formulate the questions as soon as they arose, even if it was impossible to immediately answer them. I am sure that with a picket fence of questions it is possible to impose a problem on all sides of the problem like a wolf with flags, and thus pave the way for its solution. You cannot answer all the questions, but the ability to put the question correctly is no less significant than the answer, because this question suggests in which direction to look for the answer. Likewise, a multitude of “no” may, in the end, indicate where the “yes” is hiding. If there was no unambiguous answer to a question, I decided to give several answers, including obviously foolish answers. Since I am an amateur, my answers can cause laughter or irritation of professionals. I am not against laughter, I am looking for the truth and I am ready to listen to any opinion. When I talk about stupid answers, I mean such a problem-solving method, like brainstorming, when no ideas to solve a problem are rejected, no matter how stupid they look at first glance. In addition, I decided to operate with properties not of the real physical world, but to create a mental model of the Universe and, investigating its properties, to compare their results with the existing physical laws of the real world. The model will help focus on the essentials, omitting unnecessary details. I called this mental Universe – the Universe of Khorev. Mount Sinai in Izraile has a second name – Khorev. In the Israil city of Haifa, the central avenue is called Khorev, and the shopping and medical centers located on this avenue are also called Khorev (Khorev is the English version of the writing of the name Хорев). So why not call the model of the Universe of the same name. In this Universe, the same physical laws apply. Anyway, until I figured it out.

Yes, I want to say that by this time, when I begin to describe my mental experiments in my mental Universe, I had already managed to make many dives in this paradoxical cosmic world and had time to experiment. I was shocked by what I discovered. Instead of quietly, step by step, knowing some new properties of the cosmos, searching for a logical explanation of this or that phenomenon, every time I found myself in a situation when I wanted to exclaim, “This cannot be! It’s incredible! “I got the general impression that the world of space is a natural lunatic asylum, which is literally around the corner of our usual ideas about it.

The feeling that I am in a circus does not leave me, and an illusionist appears in front of me and shows amazing tricks, the clue of which I am trying to find. Cosmos makes a fool of us! Alice in Wonderland will seem like the most truthful narration after what I learned about space! What is it worth, for example, the fact that we, it turns out, are getting information from space backwards, like in a movie, which the projectionist for laughter scrolls from end to beginning. Imagine such a situation: a small traffic accident. Person goes on the road and a car knocks him. Well, let’s say the car manages to brake, and the person gets off with a slight fright, but, nevertheless, he still falls on the roadway. Here we can see a clear causal relationship. That is, the consequence of the unexpected appearance of a pedestrian in front of a car is that the car knocks him down and a person falls. The beginning of the event is the exit of a person on the road. End of the event – a man lying on the road, hit by a car. So the same picture we get from space in this form:

1. We see that a person lies on the road.

2. That he rises and a car drives off him.

3. Man, backing away, leaves the passageway.

This is what the cosmos shows us. Moreover, he does this in a continuous round-the-clock mode almost from the moment of the Big Bang, and more precisely, from the moment of the appearance of electromagnetic radiation, that is, light.

Proving that space is deceiving us in the transfer of information is very simple, and I am surprised that none of the scientists have yet paid attention to it. I will talk more about this later. This is just an example of one of the paradoxes of the cosmos.

I began my research, not knowing to what extent everything in space is different from our usual life. This is a completely different world. We have to accept the rules of the game, which are dictated by this “other world”. But every time when I return to the familiar space of my room after another visit to this paradoxical world, I come to my senses for a long time, and at night I dream that I run my own collider on my garden plot or, having met myself in a dream, I explain to myself that I was able to return to the past and now there will be two of us.

With some things, I more or less figured out, in any case, I was able to isolate and mark the individual details of the space device. But still, as I went deeper into the cosmic problems, I didn’t leave the feeling that I didn’t grasp the overall picture that made up these details. There is only a feeling that this picture is very peculiar. It is fundamentally different from the understanding of the cosmos, not only ordinary people, but also scientists.

Well, now, it seems, I said everything.

Chapter 1. Length, width, height

Let’s start with simple things – the usual spatial dimensions: length, width and height. On the graph, these are the so-called Cartesian coordinates, the x, y, and z axes.

These are straight lines, which is very pleasing. But the joy ends there. It is alarming that all three dimensions do not exist by themselves, but come from a single point. For some reason, this point is called zero by mathematicians. Although from my point of view, zero is nothing. It turns out that these three lines come out of nothing. Imagine now that in your room “nothing” is hiding in a corner, and in every corner. How many corners so many “nothing” and all this calls “nothing”. If we are to be honest to the end, then zero must be designated so that these three lines did not connect. The zero must be really empty. If these lines were terminated without reaching the connection point, this would really be zero. And so, all sorts of speculations begin. For example,

What is a vacuum – is it really emptiness, zero, or is it something incomprehensible to us, some mysterious form of matter?

The next alarming moment from the “nothing” lines come out at right angles to each other. You can take the paper and draw countless straight lines coming from one point. But the paradox is that at right angles only three lines can be drawn: length, width and height. What is a good angle? It is as if neutral: neither ours nor yours. Of course, straight lines can be extended beyond “nothing”, also with right angles. They will be like an inverted reflection of straight lines to “nothing”, but your neighbors may already live there and therefore, among mathematicians, these three lines after zero come with a minus sign. Or maybe you have no neighbors, then there is another world hiding behind “nothing” – maybe anti-world and antimatter. You live in the right “positive” world

And who lives in a “negative” world?

The question about the negative zone of the graph is better formulated differently. The plus zone of the graph corresponds to our three-dimensional physical world.

But can the minus zone also correspond to the existence of some kind of reality, separated from ours?

And one more nuance: you put a ruler, and it lies, lies to itself, does not touch anyone, and those three lines come out of this “nothing”. They do not lie near the “nothing” they just go out. There is already an element of movement. To show this, sometimes at the end of these lines draw arrows and call them vectors. In general, unusual things begin literally from the first step. Now listen further. I was once again surprised. What are these straight lines themselves? Here’s the mathematical definition of a line: “A line is a collection of points”. Yes, yes! It is a collection of points! It turns out that the line is not something that lasts for some distance, but the points arranged in a row. Lines, it turns out not, but there are only points. Again points, again “nothing.”

Let’s talk about the point. Although it is denoted by zero on Cartesian coordinates. The point is really zero, really nothing, the complete absence of space, namely: length, width and height. But it is necessary to somehow denote zero, and mathematicians conditionally designated it with a dot. But in reality, all three lines rest on zero, rest in the absence of space. But what is interesting, although it is zero and nothing, it plays a prominent role in the dimensional Universe, at least for contrast. Here is a dimensional Universe with a length, width and height, that is, space. And there is a zero without length, width and height, that is, the absence of space. We will often return to zero as a no-space indication. Zero is present everywhere. He is like a beginning. There is zero – the absence of space, and immediately after it the space begins: length, width and height. And I would say that, really, as in Cartesian coordinates, zero is an inseparable element of space, this is the beginning, this is the point of reference. And, I repeat, in the future we will always rely on this beginning. I came to the conclusion that zero is really the cornerstone of our universe.

I will say right away: before the start of my investigation, I did not know this. Therefore, when I began to study textbooks, and analyze what I read, each new page brought me new discoveries. I wanted to put everything in its place, but from the very first steps it became clear that in order to put everything in its place or put everything on the shelves, it would be necessary to prepare a new room, and the shelves should be of a different kind. Too unusual opened a new world. And yet, I wanted to understand him, and understand everything.

It is considered that our space is three-dimensional. It has a length, width and height or in other words: line, area and volume. A point is literally the source, the beginning of three-dimensional space. But while I will not be distracted, thinking about this issue. Continue to deal with the length, width and height. When popular literature describes the properties of three-dimensional space, it also tells you how the two-dimensional and one-dimensional worlds would look like, and how the inhabitants of these worlds would perceive various physical phenomena (unfortunate inhabitants!). It is believed that our three-dimensional world has volume. Accordingly, the two-dimensional world is a plane, and one-dimensional – a line. And again we slipped to the point. The point has no measurements.

And the world concluded at the point?..

And now mentally we will increase the dimensionless point to the size of the ball and see how it fits into the spatial dimensions. In our three-dimensional space, the ball has volume. If this ball intersected the plane of the two-dimensional world, then the inhabitants of this world would first see a point that would increase in size (a sort of Big Bang of the two-dimensional world) and turn into an increasing circle. Of course, the scientists of this two-dimensional world would begin to guess whether the expansion, about which the “redshift” of their space speaks, will always continue, or the mass of the circle will be large enough, and eventually it will shrink. Meanwhile, the ball crossed the equator and the two-dimensional inhabitants saw that it shrinks and turns into a point again, and finally, it completely disappeared. In this regard, let us ask this question:

Was there really “Big Bang”?. .

We will return to the problem of the intersection of a plane with a ball and the ball itself, and at the same time a circle. For now, let’s return to the description of two-dimensional and one-dimensional spaces. The hypothetical inhabitants of the two-dimensional world will perceive the ball as a circle. And if their flat world will cross another plane, they will perceive it as a line. Accordingly, in one-dimensional space the ball will be perceived as a line, and the line as a point. We now know how the inhabitants of two-dimensional and one-dimensional spaces would perceive the ball and the plane crossing their limited worlds. And now we call these residents observers. The observer is always outside the observed object, even if it is physically located inside the object, for example, the same ball or examines its insides through a microscope. The observer is different from the observed object. A clear boundary separates him from the observed object, otherwise he simply could not separate himself from what he observes. Since the observer can see with his eyes (in the extreme case, he perceives with the senses), the observed object must be in front of the eyes – outside the observer. I agree that the inhabitants of the flat world would perceive the ball as a circle … to the touch, but they would only see a line – a sizeable segment. It is we, the inhabitants of the three-dimensional world, who see that they are dealing with a circle. And now we ask ourselves: what do the inhabitants of the one-dimensional world see when their line crosses the ball? If they are on both sides of the ball, then they tell each other that some kind of a segment extends, and then a shortening segment obstructs their path, but each of them would see only a point. That is, they both see one dimension less than the space where they live. Then ask yourself this question:

Where do we live, if we see one dimension less?..

And the second question:

Where do we look at our external three-dimensional world?

So, we see one dimension less than the space in which we live. At first, I thought that I had made a discovery: that we are residents of the three-dimensional world looking from some fourth dimension to our three-dimensional world. But then, having analyzed what we actually see, I came to the conclusion that we do not see the volume, we always see the plane that is, two dimensions. The cube always appears flat to us, and only the stereo effect of the two eyes forms a volume. Well, now let’s think again: maybe our world is two-dimensional? We always walk, go, float on a plane, on the surface of something. What is height? This is gravity. Earth gravity gives us an indication that the flat wall in front of us is the third dimension, that is, height, and if there were no gravity, we would also perceive the wall as a plane and also walk along it. Even man externally represents the plane – this is a skin cover. It turns out that we still do not live in a three-dimensional (time we will not take into account now), but in a two-dimensional world we can see not a three-dimensional, but a two-dimensional world. If we had seen three dimensions, we would have seen the reverse side of the cube, but then we would be the inhabitants of not three-dimensional, but four-dimensional space, but I have not yet found convincing evidence that the additional dimensions are the same lines as the length, width and height. Take, for example, a dimension like time. For him, it turns out, there is also a line on the chart. This is a diagonal, too, coming from zero.

In this regard, I have complaints about how to measure our physical world. As I already said, in fact, the height is that same plane, set vertically. And what is hidden there, under the surface of this very plane? Let us take, not height, but thickness. Thickness is a material whose outer boundary is a plane. We usually do not see this material, the plane hides it from us, serves as a border. If we even break the plane, what will we see in the place of the break? Again the plane. It will be uneven, but this does not change things. Under this plane is hidden not the thickness, but the essence of the object. This may be iron, stone, plastic. Each item will consist of other atoms. We can see them in the electron microscope. So what? We will again see the flat surface of the ball, or rather balls. But we will not see the essence.

So, the third or next dimension should be called the essence of the physical body, which is hidden under the plane, but the problem is that it is not known in what measures to measure the essence? And what actually called the essence of the subject? What, for example, is the essence of the iron bar? Maybe these are the functions of that thing, that material object, which are measured from the outside in centimeters and meters. What makes a thing function can only be measured indirectly, fixing the manifestations of the function in our material, flat world.

And one more thing. Someone from the outside has to figure out the essence of the thing, the subject. There must be another thing or more simply, a certain observer who would evaluate not only the external side of the subject, but also its essence. The subject itself will not figure out its essence.

It turns out that the observer is an essential addition to any object, thing, and if it is deeper, then a phenomenon, an integral external factor that helps to determine the essence of the reality surrounding him. It turns out that the observer is another dimension, additional to the essence of the subject. It turns out that the world exists for the observer, that the observer is an integral part of the existing world. The observer does not see the essence of the subject. He defines it indirectly through the functions of the object. Although the functions of things, objects, phenomena are different, but all of them can be united by one definition – the idea of a thing or phenomenon.

The paradox here is that this third dimension itself cannot be measured. It has no measurements. It is everywhere, and at the same time, it was originally laid somewhere. Material characteristics determine the difference between the manifestations of an idea in our world, but its essence is one, it revives our world, sets it in motion. Spiritually, we are parts of this idea, so we cannot see the idea, but only its manifestations. We look from there. We cannot see what we are part of. We are children of two worlds. Our shell belongs to the material flat world, our soul belongs to the third dimension inaccessible to our review.

When I began to project our three dimensions into cosmos, it turned out that cosmos is generally one-dimensional. But more about that later.

In general, it turns out that three-dimensional space does not really exist. There is a two-dimensional plane, a one-dimensional line and a dimensionless point, and we live in a two-dimensional world with a one-dimensional cosmos.

12 Järgmine

Cosmos – Great Deceiver

Foreword for English speaking readers

Foreword

Chapter 1. Length, width, height

Selle raamatu lugejad loevad ka