Cosmogensis Notes #1: Science and Metaphysics

NOTE:  This file is 7 years old and some of my ideas currently have changed or advanced considerably.  For the newest take of most of what is written below consult the Core Essay: Rethinking Physics, Metaphysics, and Cosmology.  Also some of my current methods have changed concerning how I present the more radical spiritual components of the hypothesis suggested in this and other works to reflect a more mature and scientific outlook on how to frame hypothetical questions of an advanced nature.


    Cosmogenesis is a new understanding of philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, chemistry, biology, physics, cosmology, and astronomy.  I have created Cosmogenesis using my own ideas and thoughts in conjunctions with an analytical synthesis of the work of others, particularly Mark MuCutcheon's and the Electrical Universe proponents, as well as numerous scientists and theories which I will mention as I use their work to support my own visions, thinking, and understanding.   This primer, I believe, will launch the new philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical revolution into the Aquarian Age.   
    Cosmogenesis at its heart is a "Theory of Everything".  It is essentially a philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical synthesis of the subjects of knowledge and what we know.  In so much as it presents solutions to the failures of the current models of thought in the major branches of human thinking concerning the universe, ourselves, and our place in it, it also presents new challenges that ask that we reach out and find out more.  Cosmogenesis is an attempt to answer to many of our deepest questions.  Who are we?  What are we?  How did we get here?  (And what are we going to do with the rest of eternity?  In all seriousness though, we are all looking for answers that truly satisfy our human need to understand our journey.  Cosmogenesis is the answer that satisfies my standards for a truly divine experience.  If we are Gods, then surely, we are the creators of our magnificent existence and the solution to our problems.)?  
    For those interested, the full term describing Cosmogenesis is Polytheistic-Pantheistic Cosmogenesis.  We, the Gods and Goddesses, the pantheon of the Infinite Temple of the Cosmos, being infinite in number, shape the Cosmic Temple in our own image for all eternity through (infinite light and eternal dark)?.  
    This may seem a far cry from science to the modern reader.  At the core, I submit,  philosophy, science, and metaphysics meet and that their meeting is not only provable, but in fact totally beyond disproof.  Many have felt this intuitively, and it is a terrible effort of reason to show that in fact all knowledge leads to the same ultimate truth, but those of us who are open have always known it was there from the beginning.  But for those of little faith, I submit this philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical dissertation to show, once and for all, all knowledge leads to the same place and that place is Poly-Pantheistic Cosmogenesis.  From the Infinite/Many(Polytheistic) Natural Gods and Goddesses (Pantheistic), One and All (Cosmo(s)) Are Born (Genesis).
    This work explores the idea that humans are more than they appear on the surface, and that we are here for far more than we believe.  Cosmogenesis is both a work of destruction against many of our current theories as well as an act of creating the basis of a new way of looking at our world.  Ultimately all paradoxes in philosophy, science, and metaphysics must be resolved to create a complete picture of both ourselves and the cosmos we live in.  Cosmogenesis is very much still a work in progress.  I will be working on its complete development the rest of my life.  The rest I leave to future generations of philosophers, scientists, and mystics to ponder.  

The Limitations of What We Know

    What is science?  Science is a word derived from the Latin word "scientia" which is translated as knowledge.  Science though has come to be known as "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world"(Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).  So what was once simply knowledge obtained through any means is now knowledge obtained specifically through the scientific method of inquiry, testing, and review.  This work will not attempt to engage in any questioning of the scientific review process itself, which is rife with favoritism and self serving interests, but it should be noted that new theories are rarely advanced in the scientific review process as they contradict established precedent.  These roadblocks to new ideas have slowed many alternative theories, sometimes with good cause but at other times  with poor reason.  The scientific method itself is a sound principle because it relies upon confirmation through multiple sources through experimentation.  It has its weak points, though, as not every form of knowledge can be tested in a laboratory environment.  
    Predictability was said to be the hallmark of a good theory, however it was derived and tested.  Some of our theories have proven to be excellent predictors of behavior, others less so.  Yet explanations of how many processes in our world work are lacking and many things are regarded as a mystery.  This mystery shows that our current theories do not give us a good idea of what is really going on in cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology.  Our theories of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology are often not especially predictive, nor do they show signs of truly understanding the mechanisms at work within the cosmos or within us.  While many of our ideas are correct or close to being so, others are highly questionable and subject to doubt.  
    Since science is ultimately about the search for knowledge, we must examine the means we acquire knowledge, the means we examine knowledge, and the means in which we know that we are in fact in possession of truth in our knowledge.  
    The ultimate question of knowledge is how do we know what we know?  Knowledge cannot be considered belief, because belief is something which is held to be true because of personal preference or choice.  Facts are the basic building blocks of knowledge, they are known and easily provable.  2 + 2 = 4 is a simple mathematical fact.  The fact that the Earth is round is easily provable now that we can go around the Earth in circles if we travel in a straight line.  It is a fact that light from nearly all distant galaxies is red shifted towards the red end of the spectrum of light.  Facts are simple knowledge of the most immediate kind.  It is when we attempt to put facts together in order to create an explanation for them that we enter into the grey area of interpretation.   It is the interpretation of facts that creates many of the philosophical problems in science, but also in nearly every other area of human activity.
    How do we acquire knowledge?  Knowledge is acquired through observation (through our senses) and understanding.  We see the Moon in the sky so we know it is there.  We see a car racing through the parking lot and we know it is there.  We feel the air as we breathe it, so we know it is there.  Once again simple facts are confirmed by observation and thus we acquire of understanding of the simple facts of life.  Science delves deeper when analyzing these facts under intense scrutiny with amplified tools of measurement.  
    How is it we examine knowledge?  We examine knowledge by recording facts and then reviewing them.  All of the facts we know that aren't confirmed by direct observation are done so through someone else's direct observations which are examined and recorded.  Of course whenever we have humans recording and examining evidence there is likely to be error in the recording or the examination and analysis because of any number of human errors.  
    Finally we return to the original question of how do we know what we know by examining the means by which we know that we are in fact in possession of truth in our knowledge.  Knowledge cannot be decided by committee or democratic vote.  It cannot be set into place by a dictator or 100 dictators.  It cannot be bought off.  Knowledge is what it is.  Knowledge is a very personal thing.  You either know or you don't know.  Proving knowledge requires tremendous concentration and effort.  And yet knowledge may be simple and easy, evident and clear.  
    There are two major potentially false yet necessary processes that we undertake when we judge the facts in our possession.  The first process is assumption by which we assume something to be true without proof.  * The second process is interpretation in which a person or scientist uses facts to support a case through assuming the meaning of those facts to be one of a number of possible choices when additional evidence is unavailable. *  These two approaches to dealing with facts and evidence are contrary to proof, which is required to demonstrate a complete understanding.  A model or theory may be judged by how many questions it answers correctly without resorting to assumptions or interpretations when evidence is lacking.  And yet in the process of science we make assumptions and attempt to support interpretations of facts through what we call hypothesis and theory.  Evidence is interpreted to support theories and hypothesis or reject theories and hypothesis.  In this process the most precious commodity is proof.  Proof is the holy grail of science and knowledge because it demonstrates understanding beyond the shadow of doubt.   
    What is proof then?  Proof is a demonstration of knowledge that fully matches AND explains all aspects of observed evidence showing clearly its underlying mechanism through a model or representation.  Proof is the answer to the question asked and the full demonstration of the answer so that no doubt remains in the mind regarding the mechanism involved.  Proof (in science) cannot violate any known laws or these laws are not in fact laws of science or the proof is faulty.  Again, there can be no doubt left with proof, it must be complete and total.
    Definitions can constrict the way in which facts are interpreted.  Definitions themselves are assumptions necessary to define the terms on which recognition of the known is possible with the rational mind.  All words are definitions by their nature.  Definitions determine whether or not we are speaking the same language with regard to the facts and knowledge.  (Language is the ultimate barrier to understanding between peoples when it comes to the transmission and reception of ideas.)  The problem of definition can be seen in the debate over the definition of a planet.
    How many people actually know, really know, that there are 8 planets in our Solar System?    Planets have now been defined by the International Astronomical Union so that Pluto was voted down in planetary status to "dwarf planet".  How many people know this fact?  What constitutes a planet or not is a matter of definition.  Depending on the definition of a planet, Pluto may or may not be a planet.  What can be said for sure is that Pluto is a large body that has not cleared its orbit in the Solar System of lesser bodies (a requirement of the IAU definition of a planet). * Another issue to consider regarding the eight planet standing is that the Solar System has not been fully explored and larger bodies in the far distances of our Solar System are still likely present according to the majority of scientists who work in this area of Astronomy. * There are thus 8 known planets by the IAU definition.  All of these are known facts which do not add up to knowing for sure whether there are 8 planets in the Solar System or even if there are 8 planets in the known Solar System or not.  We can say for sure that the known Solar System by the IAU definition of a planet and a dwarf planet consists of 8 planets and 3 dwarf planets.  This constitutes the true knowledge concerning the facts of what is known, but no one can say whether there are 8 planets in the Solar System by any standard because we have not fully explored the Solar System.  We do not know what the whole Solar System is, so in the end the exact answer to the question that began this paragraph is as far as I know (knowledge is personal) there is no human being living on Earth knows that there are 8 planets in the Solar System accepting any psychics who actually know for sure and can tell us where they all are.  Hence the limits of knowledge is what you know personally, not what someone else knows that you don't know.  A psychic somewhere may have that knowledge, but I do not know of any personally.  
    In an ideal world definitions are all the same.  People speak the same language.  When we say planet, we all know what planet is.  When we say corruption, we have a clear definition of what that is.  Definitions must be clear or rational discourse on a subject is not possible.  If one person believes that Socialism means Communism and another person knows that Socialism is Socialism, then rational discourse between the two camps is impossible.  Without clear definitions we cannot be clear about our knowledge, and there are a number of issues regarding definitions that I will deal with in this work.
    In the light of the questions regarding knowledge, how we acquire it, and how we interpret what knowledge we have acquired, I will examine the problems facing science today with regards to our current theories and then present a new set of concepts with which to framework our knowledge in the future.  (These new concepts I call Cosmogenesis for the infinite birthing and rebirthing of the Cosmos through its agents)?
    And now to consider the current state of ignorance and confusion in Philosophy, Science, and Metaphysics.  Let us breathe and consider the problem.
Part 1

What We Know and What We Do Not Know


(Upon the Necessity of Philosophy?)
(What is Philosophy?)
[These areas are of complex definition]
What is Knowledge?
What is Nature?
What is the Universe?  What is the Cosmos?
What is God?
What is Love?
[Some poetry may be inevitable as we consider these questions]
Aristotle's Principles of Causality and Modern Science.

Theoretical and Philosophical Problems in Current Physics and Cosmology

The Trouble with Science
    (Modern physical science is troubled by several issues regarding its process and methodology.  
    A theory
    A theory is a model for a real physical process or system. You cannot prove a theory, it is supposed to be built on evidence but not inherently provable.  The trouble is that the truth is inherently provable.  Principles can be used to create models, and if the models fit the reality, then we could say we know that we have moved beyond a theory and have achieved an understanding of a complex system.  A theory can at best be considered a set of conjectures regarding the true nature of the system.  Many theories, even if supported by evidence, are not complete models of a system, but are only partial or incomplete models.  Theories are often used as explanations for processes, but often lack the coherence of a complete model because they do not have a map of all the causes in complex systems.  
    A hypothesis
    A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a process or system that has not been tested through the scientific method and has not been confirmed by evidence in experiment.  
    The Scientific Method
    A controlled experiment is used to test a hypothesis.  The scientific method states that one must create an experiment to isolate the variables in a complex system and determine their effects.  The scientific method of controlled experiments is used in place of models when the understanding of a particular subject is not sufficiently developed to grasp the intricate details of a particular system.  This is especially true at the smaller end of reality (cells and smaller) when dealing with highly complex or miniaturized systems such as cells.  
    A natural law
    Because of the constraints of the philosophy that currently governs the ruling bodies of physical science, no metaphysical explanation can be forwarded except at the expense of a scientist's career and credibility.  I will attempt to address the subject of physical science vs. metaphysical science in this book and attempt to separate and distinguish the limits of each.  Then I will return and unify the two fields into a single field.  )
    Analogy to Ptolemy's Spheres

General and Quantum Physics Issues

    List of erroneous assumptions:
    Using the hydrogen atom spectrum analysis initiated by Balmer and his Rydberg Constant to design an understanding of all other natural concepts related to electromagnetism and particles without understanding the basic physical reality underlying the facts pertaining to the observations of the hydrogen atom.  
    Using Newtonian gravity and Einstein's General Relativity to explain gravity without understanding the basic physical reality underlying gravity itself.  Newton made assumptions which were unproven as did Einstein, who in addition falsified his E = MC2 proof.  
    Attempting to use mathematical proofs without understanding the philosophical and physical reality underlying the phenomenal observations.  Dealing with Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics and the incorrect philosophical conclusion applied by Max Born specifically to Schrodinger's Equation, probability is not a cause and does not exist in nature as all probability theory is based on an underlying physical reality that remains unexamined.  Probability can be used to analyze large complex systems as a model but does not explain physicality.  Physicality of the large scale is not based on probability, neither can physicality of the small scale.
    What this leads to is the understanding that the electron (or the quantum electron which will be explained later) is NOT a probability wave but a particle that follows normal physical trajectories in the electron envelope surrounding the nucleus.  The probability wave analysis which creates the currently known quantum orbitals in our models must be false if we are using the assumption of a probability wave.  
    (All units attached to a physical object must make sense such that they follow logically and can be related to a real world physical known variable.  Examples include the standard units of measurement of the mass of particles in quantum physics which are currently expressed as MeV/C2(or million electronvolts divided by the speed of light squared), which when simplified equals out to Kg/coulomb.  The coulomb is a unit describing a 6.242×1018  elementary charged particles said to be unit of "charge" as it is currently understood.  Charge, however, is an abstraction which has never been explained in conventional physics with any physical explanation.  The coulomb itself currently represents a number of charged particles, and is certainly a number of particles as established by the oil drop experiment which created the definition.  Mass per particle is a valid unit of particle mass.  Mass per coulomb would be a mass of 6.242×1018 particles of whatever type.
    Quantum physics currently uses Einstein's Special Relativity implicitly in its particle mass definition, this is the reason that C2 is part of the mass definition expression of a particle.  It is assumed that no particle can travel faster than light so the voltage per light speed squared of the particle is used to define it in terms of mass at "relativistic" speeds.  However, it will be shown later that this is utterly false because of the way in which Einstein's famous equation was created. )
See McCutcheon overview
The Four Forces - The Standard Model Particles - Gluon, Graviton, W+/W-/Z Bosons, and the Leptons - General Discussion on the Four Forces
Electromagnetism and Charge
Potential vs. Kinetic Energy
Newton Made False Assumptions
Einstein Lied - Special Relativity and E = MC2
Gravity - General Relativity and Its Problems
Quantum Physics Overview - quantum numbers n, k, m, and s.  Rydberg constant.  q(t)p(t) - p(t)q(t) = (h/2πi) I where I is the unit matrix and the whole equation represents the quantum condition (Max Born). The equation q(t)p(t) - p(t)q(t) does not equal 0 because p is momentum and q is position so that p and q are never the same because objects move.  Over a period of time position will change or momentum will change depending on whether the observer is observing one or the other.  Because the system is not at rest, only one or the other may be known.  Bohr's Equation that derived Rydberg's constant.  Schrodinger and the Wave Equation.  Heisenberg and his Matrix Mechanics.  Dirac and Quantum Algebra.  Discussion on Plank.  Hydrogen atom spectrum.  Einstein and non-locality and the double split experiment with same philosophical problem.
Issues with particles in Quantum Physics.  Neutrino, Higgs Boson, Quarks, etc.  Use of seek and search to verify existence of particles out of millions of cases is not science because it lacks experimental controls and underlying understanding of actual physical reality of forces being described.  Analyze.
Paradoxes and Absurdities in Quantum Physics

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

<quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine)[1] this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.
    Schrodinger created what is today called Quantum Mechanics which is entirely based on Schrodinger's equation known as Schrodinger's Wave Equation.  When the wave equation is collapsed by the observer the quantum system (governed by the equation) is supposed to generate a particle (equation?).  
For a general quantum system:
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\mathbf{r},\,t) = \hat H \Psi(\mathbf{r},t)
[edit] Single particle in three dimensions
For a system in three dimensions:
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\mathbf{r},\,t) = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\Psi(\mathbf{r},\,t) + V(\mathbf{r})\Psi(\mathbf{r},\,t)
  • \mathbf{r} = (x,y,z) is the particle's position in three-dimensional space,
  • \Psi(\mathbf{r},t)is the wavefunction, which is the probability amplitude for the particle to have a given position r at any given time t.
  • m is the mass of the particle.
  • V(\mathbf{r})is the time independent potential energy of the particle at position r.
  • \nabla^2is the Laplace operator. >>

How can Angular Momentum be Quantized??  
What (charge) Creates the Power necessary to keep a quantum orbital in its configuration and placement in the atom??
Light Speed Limits and Cosmic Rays: Tesla - Proof for faster than light travel in particle accelerators through magnetic fields - discuss in later sections.  Do electrical fields move faster than light as well or only magnetic fields?  Discuss and consider.
Probability is Not a Cause

Big Bang Issues

Dark Matter and Energy and the Galaxy Rotation Problem Gravity/Dark Matter
Red Shift
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and Virgo Cluster Distortion
Expansion Issues with regards to Light Speed
The Finite Universe Problem and Infinite Light: Fractal Interpretation, Intervening Material/Fields, Complete Solar Surface Solution
The Boundaries of the Universe: Setting Illogical Limits to the size of the Cosmos
Stellar Cosmology Problems
Blue Stragglers
Quantum Tunneling
Black Holes and Neutron Stars vs. Gravity
Electromagnetism Largely Ignored as a Force
Stellar Formation Problems with length of time it takes for a Star to form from a cloud (research needed).

Problems with Current Planetary Models

The problem with gravitational contraction using the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism as an explanation for the excess energy being released by the Gas Giants of our Solar System.
Time issues with regard to how long it takes for a gas cloud to condense into a Solar System in models (research needed).

An Examination of Current Alternative Physics and Cosmology Theories

Mark McCutcheon's Quantum Expansion Theory

Note: mention ideas concerning matter density and uranium stability, and errors concerning measuring space inside the atom which must be considered partially correct (research spectroscopy and x-ray crystallography).  Light is no longer a speed limit on any matter in the Universe, connect to Tesla's statement that he had discovered many Cosmic Rays that were travelling faster than the speed of light based on their energy vs. mass curve (show boundary using math analyzing cosmic ray speeds vs. mass).  Discuss here or there about electron clusters leaving through gaps between electrons.  

The Old Steady State Model

The Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology

    The Electric Universe model essentially states that plasma and electromagnetism are either as important as gravity or more likely even more important than gravity in determining the forces that shape the cosmos.  Working primarily from the observations and conclusions Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist Hannes Alfven, as well as other plasma physicists who followed him, the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology models proposes that the universe is largely run on electromagnetic energies.  Many of their predictions have been born out (site website in Sources).  
    In Electric and Plasma cosmology, stars are powered by external galactic electrical currents as well by charge differential between stars and their surrounding environment.  The mechanism suggested involves a concept that states that interstellar gas is negatively charged while the surface of the Sun is positively charged so that current flows from interstellar gas fields out beyond the edge of the Solar System inwards to the surface the Sun.  While this idea is very interesting and seemingly plausible according to our current idea of electromagnetism, which uses abstract charges in attempt to explain what appears to be attractive behavior between opposite poles of electromagnetic activity, a strong enough current to support the Sun's output of approximately 4 X 1026 watts has not been found in the Solar system. Though the heliospheric current sheet is very powerful, it is far less than the amount required to power the Sun's stellar output.      
    The Electrical and Plasma Cosmology postulates that stars and planets are born primarily (if not entirely) from division of stars and planets under intense galactic electrical currents in order to increase the surface area of those stars in response to very high current density.  In essence the model states that  massive electrical stress caused by these galactic currents at certain galactic current nodes forces a star at these nodes to divide in order to increase the surface area to current ratio.  Note that massive galactic currents of plasma have been found not only galaxies, including our own galaxy, but also between galaxies in clusters and even superclusters.  These currents certainly influence the shaping of galaxies in major ways.  Planets are born, in this concept primarily from gas giants (in the case of rocky planets) or stars (in the case of gas giants) where the currents form solid masses below the surface of the star or planet that are violently ejected when charge builds up to a certain critical level.  
    Most Plasma Cosmology works from the assumption of an infinite Universe as far as I am familiar with.  Many of the best challengers of the Big Bang theory are Plasma Cosmologists and Electrical Universe proponents.  As such, many of the criticisms that I  have listed against the Big Bang originated with these scientists.  
    The presence of large scale electrical currents in the galaxy and in space cannot be discounted.  Plasma Cosmology accurately describes many effects that we observe in reality and offers excellent predictability in many areas including aurora borealis effects, comet behavior, galactic current behavior, solar flare and storm processes and more.  Clearly plasma has a major effect on the cosmos.  It is said that 99% of the observable matter in the Universe is plasma.  Many of the process of plasma physics is well studied in plasma physics laboratory, unlike much of standard Big Bang Cosmology.  The forces are fairly well understood and modeled on real life plasma behavior as observed.  I believe that there may yet be new discoveries that galaxies are indeed shaped by plasma forces and gravity is not the only force holding together large scale systems.  However some element of Plasma Cosmology need reworking.
    Mark McCutcheon's ideas have changed the way electromagnetism is understood to operate.  Mark replaces charge are a abstract with his new explanation.  As such, the mechanisms of plasma operation cannot be based on charge, but on different apparent quantum electron densities which may change some of the understandings of the flow of plasma and the source of its power (as it is no longer powered by mysterious charge but by clear and demonstratable electrical pressure differentials between two sides of a connected electrical field with two poles of different quantum electron density) .  
    The lack of a detectible electrical field that would power the Sun would lead us to question the basic concept that negatively charged molecules and atoms in empty space would draw electrical current towards a positively charged solar surface.  This does not necessarily mean that the standard theory of stellar fusion is correct, or that the Electric/Plasma Cosmology concept is far off from the actual mechanism of operation of stars and planets.  After much consideration from reading Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory, specifically the descriptions of magnetic fields, as well as old accounts of how Theosophists and Tesla believed stars were powered by cosmic rays, I was able to derive a mechanism whereby the electric currents were not needed to directly power the Sun externally and yet still retained an essentially electro-magnetic stellar model.  This mechanism has an entirely physically detectible process and it can be shown mathematically to have far more than sufficient power the Sun using a physical process that has been tested in a laboratory.  
    My consideration of this model and its essential claims led me to keep many of the additional processes described such as stars giving birth to stars and gas giants and gas giants giving birth to rocky planets under a modified mechanism of development using external magnetic field pressure and internal electrical pressure within the stars and planets in question with some more exotic hypothesis with regards to the possibility that core instability could cause explosions that ejected new cores if the matter in stars cores was in fact hyperdense matter that could become unstable in the absence of external pressure.  In addition, the plasma concept of magnetic reconnection, that is so important to our understanding of solar flares and storms, is also vital to understand some of the energy transfers in my derived magneto-electric model of a star.  

Theoretical and Philosophical Problems in Current Chemistry

    Modern chemistry is beset by several problems that began with the problems created by Quantum Physics.  The current ideas regarding quantum orbitals are highly suspect.  They appear to have been designed to explain chemical bonds as an afterthought rather than being built on real physical scientific principles.  Orbitals are said to be regions where one is 90% likely to find electrons.  In fact, it is said that theoretically orbitals go on infinitely.  They are again said to be governed by a wave equation as in Schrodinger's Wave equation.  The location and speed of the electron cannot be determined simultaneously (a macrocosmic fact that can be demonstrated by simple logic with ordinary daily objects without any special quantum physics experience).  The electron is said to exist as a wave and a particle, yet is able to create a solid wall to other electrons despite the fact that the atom is composed of mostly empty space and there is said to be very few electrons present in the outer chemically active orbitals of an atom.  This being said, the predictive power of the quantum orbital theory of atoms is questionable because it has no physical explanation.  It has demonstrated very little predictive ability because it was created largely as an explanation of what was observed in molecules regarding atomic bonding.   Yet no physical cause for charge has every been discovered until Marc McCutcheon's very recent postulates concerning these.  Charge, is, in fact, an arbitrary abstraction that has nothing to do with what is really going on inside the atom and between atoms in molecular bonds.
    Orbitals currently are hypothesized to exist as s, p, d, or f configurations in non bonded atoms.  Those who have studied these theories know there are many "exceptions" to what would be expected in terms of orbital theory when dealing with how atoms bond with each other.  This is obviously a case of confirmation bias due to the fact these exceptions exist.  Hybridized orbital concepts may not describe the properties of actual electron clouds as they bounce around the nuclei of molecules when they have formed bonds.  They certainly do not mathematically describe them using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  New models are necessary in terms of the new theory to account for actual known properties as observed.

Theoretical and Philosophical Problems in Current Biology

    Note: Describe here, compare and contrast between, and then synthesize in the New Biology section.
    Biology, as it currently stands, is beset by certain philosophical issues surrounding the origins of organic life on this planet.  According to current Biological theory, Speciation, the emergence of new species, occurs by process of reproductive isolation of populations from each other followed by random mutation that alters one or both groups to the point that they are no longer reproductively compatible with each other and now have effectively separate gene pools.  Natural selection, which is defined as differential survival through differential reproductive success, shapes all populations and facilitates in speciation once a population is isolated in a different environment.  Yet "accidents" and "disasters" are as much a contributing factor in severely reducing a population which redistributes the mix of genes in a population and favors the expression of what are referred to as recessive alleles (traits that are masked by a dominant trait) because of small mating population size.  Mutation is the source of newness and innovative change in biological systems, natural selection only shapes the existing population, while bottleneck effects of sudden changes in the environment favor the redistribution of existing traits.
"God does not play dice with the Universe" - Einstein
    There is largely little to no debate between biologists as to the cause of evolution itself.  It is said to be based on random changes in genes caused by external natural factors followed by isolation of species and natural selection.  Evolution is random, shaped by the internal force of reproductive expansion and the external forces of mutagenic alteration of genes and environmental fluctuation.  Yet, never in this analysis is considered the possibility that the universe itself may be determining the timing of mutation.  It is assumed, strait out, that the universe is a dumb machine, programmed by no one, guided by no thing, churning along in ignorance, presumably until it dies a ignoble death in a Big Crunch or Big Freeze or bounces back into life miraculously by mathematical fiat in a new Big Bang..tada!  Biology is thus caught up in the same basic ignorance, at the core of its idea of Life and its origins, as Cosmology.  
    The concept of randomness in mutation, the ultimate source of ALL variation in a population of organisms is an unprovable construct that is assumed in all thinking in the science of biology.  Rather than postulating a higher order of the Cosmos, biology assumes that all mutations are entirely random instead of assuming an orderly process by which the natural laws are used by intelligent beings to develop the existing flora and fauna of the Earth.  While doubt is immediately cast on any idea which suggests any sort of intelligent design, the plausibility of intelligent design has largely been limited to the existing theories of design which do not offer a sufficiently probable mechanism by which such design could be effectively put into action using the existing laws of the physical cosmos.  Causality in current biology is assumed to be entirely physical, while such a causality can never be proven.

    The entire crux of the evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design debate is one of definitions.  Evolution, as a word, has come to be defined as random forces without conscious guidance creating complex systems as a byproduct of other well defined forces such as physical isolation of populations  and natural selection.  As such the very word evolution has been hijacked!  Creationists and intelligent design proponents are forced to argue against evolution, which is an impossibility and thus start off hamstrung in their debate against evolution. proponents.   Evolution exists, and evolution is very much guided by intelligent design through creative precognition of systemic development of complex physical systems.  What then does evolution truly mean?  Evolution is a word that means transformation of existing forms through an orderly process of development.  Evolution exists and cannot be argued against because transformation through an orderly process is a feature of the entire Cosmos from the microcosm to the macrocosm.  Physical evolution can be said to be the transformation of physical systems through physical processes, and is essentially our current definition of evolution, implying a separation of physical and spiritual processes.  Spiritual evolution on the other hand, is the transformation of mind, heart, and self through the mechanism of spirit within the context of soul, though this concept does not dispute the material influences either.  Except for the very few animal psychologists out there, very few biologists would subscribe to the belief that animals, much less plants, have soul, heart, self, or least of all spirit, and if they possess mind it is likely less so than we imagine.  The animal mind may not be quite up to the human mind, but the higher animals are not too far from human's current level of development.  Yet it is the evolution of higher and higher consciousness of life over time that most reflects the idea of spiritual and physical evolution coevolving systems through intelligent design and synchronistic timing of processes.  What agents then cause intelligent design?  Is it God?  Certainly not in the way current Creationists see God.
    Creationism suggests the existence of a God who guides the process of evolution.  Current theories of intelligent design similarly speculate concerning this question and are linked to the old Judeo-Christian-Islamic God concept.  None of these ideas represent the direction intelligent design needs to grow towards.  Creationism itself is surrounded by dogmas that make it unpalatable to intelligent individuals.  Yet Creationism asks very pertinent questions regarding Intelligent Design that make it worth browsing if we are to truly discover a mechanism whereby spirits may intelligently design biological systems and then unfold their development through conscious guidance; a process has been mostly invisible from the point of view of the rational (and limited) mind of man.  
    Why do biologists deny the possibility of intelligent design?  It is because we have substituted closed minded skepticism for open minded inquiry.  Skepticism has its place, but without open mindedness Biology would never have developed its current understanding of organic Life.  Open minded inquiry and discovery have allowed us to see back in time through the fossil record and create a map of the Earth's natural history to perhaps over 4 billion years ago.  We know many of the key turning points of life as reflected in the fossil and geological records.  We know the when and where of organic life on Earth, our knowledge of the how and why is woefully underdeveloped.  Will biologists continue to deny intelligent design possibilities?  They will unless a case is made strong enough that not only is intelligent design a possibility, but that intelligent design guides physical and spiritual evolution through specific mechanisms that can be understood, tested, and verified to the satisfaction of the standards of reason.  Cosmogenesis offers such a system for consideration, but for now we must move on to Psychology.

Theoretical and Philosophical Problems in Current Psychology

The Consciousness Problem
The Limits Imposed by the Definition of Normality and What is Possible
Will expand on this later.

Introduction to Cosmogenesis

How Do We Know What We Know
    Knowledge is self evident.  Someone who knows what they know simple knows.  In many ways knowledge resembles belief.  The difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge can be proven and belief may or may not be proven depending on whether it is based on something real or not.  Yet some proofs are self evident, all one needs is the tools necessary to understand the statement of truth.  4 + 4 = 8 is a self evident proof.  Yet proving the world is round would be a much more difficult proof to argue, even though it is obviously true.  Yet we know it's true because we have mastered this level of knowledge.  How do we know?  Because we are what we know.  
    When we misrepresent what we know to others, when we substitute belief or opinion for knowledge, we take part in deception that is essentially self deception.  Such self deception must be exposed.  Such deception only shows we have learned how to lie or misrepresent ourselves and our case rather than humbly admitting we don't know.  This is the essential crime that establishment science has committed against an unwitting public.
    (What is obviously true to some is shocking to others.  In this respect knowledge leaves no room for debate or rejection.)  
    Knowledge is what it is.  Knowledge demands open mindedness.  By open mindedness I mean a willingness to allow knowledge in.  Without this openness, knowledge does not enter.  Open mindedness requires a suspension of our disbelief, if even for a moment, in order to hear the message before attempting to analyze and digest it.  A closed mind does not grow, does not change, and hence can never hear knowledge speaking.
    Knowledge must be considered through the lens of its opposite, terror.  Terror is sudden onset of a feeling that you don't know what you are doing and have been exposed in the truth of that fact.  Stage fright of new actors on stage for the first time knowing suddenly and awfully that they don't know what they are doing is the classic experience of terror.   The exposure of errors in your thinking will induce this very same effect.  Because the scientific establishment has never experienced the terror of its own inability to prove its ideas it clings to its old beliefs because the greater public and powers have never challenged them to own up to their claims of knowledge in many areas such as the Big Bang cosmology and Physical Evolution.  They ultimately have no proof, only interpretations of evidence which themselves are not proven because there was no other party out there with equal weight to challenge them.  What does this say regarding what we know?  We find everywhere that we don't know nearly as much as we claim and that our interpretations rest on weak reasoning exposed to concentrated attack.  Uncertainty does not plague the face of the scientific establishment because it has not been challenged enough on the grounds of reasoning and interpretation.    And yet there is a terrible uncertainty in their arguments which leaves us ungrounded without a scientific answer to all the major religious questions (where did we come from?  what is the nature of the cosmos?) that science has tried to answer and to the basic physical facts of physical and chemical science themselves.  
    In the course of developing Cosmogenesis, it was necessary to consider the idea of spiritual proofs.  It was necessary because Cosmogenesis is not simply a materialistic theory of how the Cosmos emerged from random background flux but postulates the existence of a spiritual cause for the material cosmos.  This is, of course, nothing new, though materialists have rejected this reasoning as being unprovable, and failing that suggesting that the mechanisms, if any, of such a system were also unprovable and beyond the scope of science.  
    A set of simple spiritual proofs is easy to produce with regards to issues connected with our spiritual architecture.  It is easy to prove that someone doesn't know what they are talking about, the proof of negation.  It is far more difficult to prove a case in science as a whole.  Much of current science, in fact, can be considered one long running proof whose errors are largely ignored to maintain consensus.    
The Two Possible Belief Systems of Plausible Causation
Physical Non- Spiritual Science
Physical Spiritual Science
Rooted in matter as a source of truth
Rooted in knowledge as source of truth
Automatically rejects all non-physical theories as irrational
Accepts physical theories as a partial view of reality
Often non-philosophical and in extreme anti-philosophical
Philosophical and open minded
Materialist - experience belongs to matter and matter alone
Non-physical experience is source of the experience of being physical
3 D physical cause and effect through 3 D matter
Spiritual cause and effect and multidimensional matter
Physical begets physical
Spiritual begets physical
No ether, matter is real
Matter and ether are both real
3 D material vibration
Multiple dimensions of material vibrations
Brain creates thoughts
Thoughts independent of brain
Brain recognizes patterns  
Patterns exist outside of framework of brain recognizing them
Recognition is physical in brain
Recognition is in non-physical mind
Mind is in brain only
Mind is independent of brain
Brain creates consciousness
Consciousness experiences physical and uses brain to organize the mind
Physical explanations for origin of the Cosmos
Non-physical explanations for origins of the Cosmos
Accidental Cosmos or Clockmaker God
Divine Master Plan for Cosmic Development
Evolution through Random Mutation and Natural Selection (Differential Survival by Differential Reproductive Success)
Evolution through Conscious Development by Spiritual/Higher Guidance or Synchronicity with Unconscious Forces that Cause Mutation and Natural Selection

    How do you employ the physical to prove the non-physical?  What about non-physical matter or matter beyond 3d?  Nothing - purpose - matter?  Terror - knowledge - power?  Explain and map out 3d, 4d, 5d matter and multidimensional systems. This means that there are n dimensions of "hyperspace(needs explaining and considering regarding name and probable nature)".  
    Cosmogenesis  is an idea that the cosmos is a self creating through an organic paradigm of growth and expansion which exists in a hierarchy of physical and spiritual dimensions populated by a hierarchy of spiritual and physical beings who create their own reality through knowledge and express it through the power of creative expression.  Everything you see in the cosmos is a product of this process.  Consciousness continually expands in search of itself and in search of greater self expression.  The basic science principles of Cosmogenesis are then developed upon, through, and with the higher occult scientific principles regarding the evolution of the soul and the spirits who experience themselves and their creation through the self creating self existing infinite dimension of knowledge itself.  
    The some of the basic scientific and metaphysical hypothesis in no particular order of Cosmogenesis is as follows:
  • This book attempts to create a picture of a new science to facilitate the understanding of cosmic cycles in the areas of astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, metaphysics, and philosophy.  In addition it advances the work of several key rogue scientists or thinkers including Mark McCutcheon, Rupert Sheldrake, Immanuel Velikofsky and Neil Adams.  
  • The basic particle of the cosmos is a quantum electron. Plank's quanta is in fact the quantum electron.  The expansion of the quantum electron creates the four forces of nature.  This theory is called Expansion Theory and is based on the work of Mark McCutcheon in his book The Final Theory.
  • Matter composed of Quantum Electrons expands in ether, the 4th dimensional field.
  • Stars are powered by cosmic ray bombardment of their magnetic fields
  • The cosmos is infinite and eternal.
  • The cosmos is continually increasing the number of systems contained within it.  This goes from basic electrons on up to galaxies, galaxy superclusters, and up the chain of larger and larger systems.
  • The cosmos functions to create what is needed by the great Cosmic spirit and the infinite host of lesser spirits.
  • The cosmos's development is planned out consciously by spirits or what we refer to as non-physical conscious beings.
  • All physical systems are built on principles of spirit that are easy to understand.  
  • All things have a spirit, all spirits evolve.  
  • Spirit evolves through soul by the three principles of mind, ego/self, and heart.
  • The cosmos is divided into levels which correspond to the nature of activity of different planes and represent the development of the mind, ego/self, and spirit at each level.  The soul is divided into bodies each corresponding to these developmental planes so that each plane represents the soul at a particular stage in development.  
  • The Tree of Life, based on Kabbalah can be used as a basic construct of each individual entity in the cosmos, though the entire picture of an entity's existence is beyond the capability of a simplified Tree of Life diagram to expose.  At best a Tree of Life may allow us to relate to the basic experiential framework of an individual's experience of reality through its mind and ego/self as a function of its spiritual development through the advancement of its understanding of the soul.
  • Planets and stars undergo long scale evolutionary changes.
  • Planets and stars grow, expand, and divide just like living cells.
  • Planets and stars are living systems with an intelligent consciousness arrayed in a cosmic hierarchy of creation.
  • Some planets become stars and stars become planets over the long scale evolution of solar bodies.
  • Civilizations exist at the leisure of the planetary spirit that hosts them.
  • Cosmic intelligences aide the development of planets through their cycles of evolution.
  • Cosmic intelligences called by our culture angels and archangels assist the unfolding of cosmic architecture designed for each solar body.
  • Beings incarnate as humans on the surface of each solar body while often being unaware of the true purpose of their greater soul.
  • Civilizations evolve and change with time and each geological cycle signals the rebirth of the old civilization as it struggles to unfold into a new and greater civilization.
  • Civilizational evolution is also guided by intelligent cosmic architects to assist in the evolution and unfolding of the design of the planetary soul, who is an intelligent consciousness herself.
  • Each planet undergoes a four cycle developmental phase to facilitate the co-creation of the collective planetary vision.
  • A greater plan exists to guide the planetary evolution in conjunction with the evolution of the larger solar system of which the planet is a part of.
  • Each planet’s civilizational model is unique.
  • The galaxy grows and changes with time, but on time scales currently too long for conventional science to contemplate.
  • Similarly planetary evolutionary cycles are far longer than current science contemplates.
  • One plausible theory of planet creation is that planets create other planets in a process akin to spiral cleavage binary fission using magnetic z-pinch effects to guide the process.  Essentially the magnetic field divides within the planet and breaks off a large chunk of the stellar core that is already pre separated.  The magnetic field then pulls apart and ejects a huge amount of matter with the new core.  Our moon was created thus as it broke away from our planet.  This process was first suggested by electric Universe proponents such as Velikovsky.  There are many additional hypothesis
  • The basis of a new theory of planet and stellar evolution exists in the form of plasma cosmology/electric universe theories of stellar/planetary evolution.  In accordance with my visions and readings I have modified the basic concept of an electric star powered by external currents to one that is powered by cosmic rays interacting with its magnetic field which also expands its electrical field within its core and throughout the star.  
  • The basic summary of this system is that cosmic rays create pressure on the surface and throughout magnetic field they are passing through.  Because magnetic fields are huge fields of quantum electrons (McCutcheon) connected together in a massive river-like motion of quantum electrons, they absorb pressure and transfer it through the entire magnetic field system (in this case a star).  The pressure must be released in some way because otherwise the field would continue to shrink under the effects of cosmic ray bombardment.
  • The magnetic field pressure is most likely released inside the interior of the star as magnetic fields reconnect an effect that causes field lines to merge and the stored energy to be released in the forms of heat and light.  An examination of the amount of cosmic ray energy bombarding the entire Sun’s magnetic field at any one moment shows that the amounts are far in excess (50 or more times) of the amount necessary to support the entire Sun’s output of a 4 X 10^26 watts (SOURCE on Internet + calculations made).  These analyses were conservative though because I was lacking some data in this area so the amount is very likely enough to fuel the Sun’s output.  
  • Star power output is thus dependent on the total amount of energy of the cosmic rays bombarding the outer surface of its magnetic field.  If magnetic reconnection occurred deeper in the core this would mean that the star would build up significant heat in the core and transfer it to its outer surface through radiative pressure.  
  • Planets would similarly build up internal heat because of magnetic pressure from cosmic and solar rays.  The energy would be transferred into the core of the planet and where the field lines became tight, reconnection would occur releasing energy.  Alternatively, long exposure to magnetic field lines in the planet core could create enough pressure to change elements into heavier elements by a process like nuclear fusion.  Experimental evidence would be difficult to come by because of the pressures and energies involved.
  • Planets change into stars, starts change back into planets.  The old core of a star/quasar becomes a planet (or a “black hole”).  Each is part of a cosmic cycle of birth and death whereby the system slowly evolves better, bigger, brighter, and more intricate structures.  The system is a managed energy transfer system whereby more energy is constantly being added to the universe and that energy is constantly being redistributed to the existing systems in a complex and deep rhythm.  
  • Over time an old stellar core/planet can build up energy/matter/pressure inside its core through its electromagnetic field.  The field can be manipulated as an electromagnetic compressor-decompressor.  This electromagnetic compressor-decompressor is able to absorb expansion pressure of cosmic rays or even light (McCutcheon) and store it either as an expanded EM field or within the core as larger heavier atoms.  In the core, under massive pressure, elements could be stable which would not be on the surface and which would contain significant radiation pressure.  
  • The planet in this manner builds up mass and energy at its core which can be used to slowly expand the physical size of the planet over the long, long course of its evolution, or could be used to release tremendous amounts of gas and energy.
  • Stars absorb energy into their electromagnetic field just as planets do.  Within the stellar core the star’s EM field can either release the energy of the field by reconnection or some other electromechanical mechanism.  
  • Planets go through 4 phases of development: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire.  In Earth they are standard rocky planet such as our inner planets.  In water they are covered by deep liquids or frozen light elements.  In air they are gas giant type planets.  In fire they are stars or star-like.  These four phases are not always in order as written.  Multiple short phases can replace a full large phase at times.
  • This being said, the idea of infinite life giving birth to infinite life is the very core of my understanding of our cosmos.  While I cannot confirm this yet as a physical scientist I have faith in my visions and in the ultimate truth of cosmic evolution.  I am a full believer in a self aware universe that gives birth to new consciousness, new deities, new humans, new animals, and new worlds, galaxies, and beyond.  It is the very heart of my soul.  It has been said before by an old hermeticist that what man can conceive man can achieve.  This is the spirit of truth beyond illusion.  It is, after all, a mental universe.
  • Conventional astronomy says planets condense from giant clouds of mostly hydrogen gas which rotate near a star.  An alternative theory is that rocky planets emerge from gas giants in a complex set of evolutionary steps.  Velikofsky writes about his own system of planets emerging from the gas giants of our system to be moved by electromagnetic means to the inner reaches of the solar system.  He bases his work on ancient diagrams from ancient civilizations that appear to show these events.  
  • In my own understanding I believe that in fact rocky planets do in fact emerge from gas giants (or even other larger rocky planets) through planetary binary fission whereby a rocky planet is ejected from a large gas giant during a magnetic field overload or core destabilization event caused by destabilization of hyper dense transuranium elements.
  • The concept of the inner core as highly pressurized amalgam of super heavy metals and other elements has never been forwarded before.  The idea that part of the core can break off and be ejected during a violent magnetic core overload or destablization of a large mass of transuranium elements is a very new take on the concept of planetary fission advanced by electrical universe proponents with a new mechanism in place of the old one that no longer applies due to the elimination of charge as a concept with Mark McCutcheon's final theory.
  • The idea is that this would take place mostly from a gas giant is necessary because a gas giant would have the necessary mass to perform this process on multiple occasions.  The rocky planets new orbits could grow outwards with time due to radiative pressure from the gas giant.  This would be far more true for planets that might be created from a star in a similar way that would likely give birth to larger gas giants.  A star's radiative pressure would slowly push any planet away from the star.
  • Planets may move towards the star I believe over time and eventually they are absorbed by the Sun if the star's surface is growing at a faster rate than the radiative pressure is pushing a planet outwards away from the star.  This could also happen if the planet's orbit is disrupted by another celestial body.  
  • Most of the larger gas giants are eventually evolved to the point where they become stars themselves.  This is part of the procession of stellar life that all large solar bodies participate in.  They then can create their own gas giants and planets as needed.
  • Hierarchy of Systems:
  • A hierarchy of galactic systems exist all the way to the central galactic core.   These go from Planets to Stars to Central Sun Systems to Large Central Sun Systems to Smaller Star Cluster Systems to Larger Star Cluster Systems to the Galactic Core.
  • Galaxies divide and grow in a similar way to planets and stars.  Galaxies expand and divide in order to grow.  
  • Galaxies are managed affairs involving untold numbers of celestial beings who progress their evolutions.  A galaxy’s nerve center is the large black body similar to a planet that we currently call a “black hole”.  It is the center of the galaxy’s magnetic field and of its intelligent operation.  From here celestial beings in a vast hierarchy observe the development of galactic evolution in accordance with the greater plan for this section of the larger structure (cluster, supercluster, and metagalaxy).  
  • Galaxies generally grow and expand, and then shrink and contract just as with planets and stars.  The long term pattern is for the increase in the number of all of these in ever larger patterns of organization.  The ever increasing number of galaxies is rotated on a vast schedule of larger organization so that there are periods of expansion followed by periods of rest.  The areas we call voids are in fact often filled with dormant galaxies at rest.  Blue straggler galaxies are examples of galaxies that are mostly getting ready to power up.

The  New Physics, Chemistry, and Cosmology

Quantum Expansion Theory: A Review and Analysis of Mark McCutcheon's Conclusions in his The Final Theory

    The quantum electron is the basic particle of matter.  This particle is partially described by Mark McCutcheon in his book The Final Theory under the name electron.  He is incorrect here in assuming the particle we currently call the electron was in fact the same particle that he describes.  It is not, and I will elaborate later on this. The other matter he was incorrect regarding was the nature of the electron clusters which compose light that we call photons.  I will also discuss this later on.  I have the greatest respect for Mark's ideas because he is correct about the vast majority of his theories and my work would not have been possible without his creating the basis for it.  
    Quantum electrons continually expand and the consequences of this expansion create the four forces of nature which are inherently one.
    Gravity is the consequence of atoms expanding as described by Mark's book.
    Mark has exposed Isaac Newton's ideas as a falsification based on how Newton developed his equations.  (Read from The Final Theory).  It was because of Newton's erroneous use of an equation to hide an assumption as a fact that we currently believe that gravity is an invisible force pulling objects together instead of a result of atomic expansion and the expansion of all matter.  (Read from The Final Theory regarding expanding atom).   
    All objects made of quantum electrons, essentially everything material, expand.
    The strong, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces are consequences of the expansion of the quantum electron.  
    There was no big bang.  Evidence for the big bang is suspect.  Cosmic Microwave Background radiation can have the same distribution observed in a infinite cosmos fractal distribution without a big bang necessary.  Our observations support a fractal distribution of matter.  The Doppler Shift of red shifted light could easily be caused by this light passing through dust, debris, and magnetic fields.  This has been suggested by several other writers of alternatives to the Big Bang model.
    E = MC2 has been shown to be a falsification by Mark McCutcheon.  Mark clearly shows that Einstein emitted two lines in his famous E = MC2 equation that show his manipulation of his calculus to rig his result in favor of  his conclusion.  What is most shocking is that this blatant lie and falsification easily caught by a high school calculus teacher has gone completely undiscovered for nearly a hundred years by what we have been told are best scientific (and mathematical) minds in the world (Read from The Final Theory section) This knowledge must be regarded as a deathblow to conventional astrophysics, new theories must come forward to explain our cosmos because E = MC2 is a central tenant in much of the thinking and equations supporting the current science.
    Such underpinning supports to our current theories such as quantum tunneling, which supports nuclear fusion, and the standard model of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, bosons, gravitons, etc) are also untenable.  
    Mark deals with our current basic ideas of elementary particles towards the end of his book.  

Cosmogenesis and Quantum Expansion Theory Expands Beyond Mark's McCutcheon's Original Theory in Physics and Chemistry

The New Philosophy of Physics Explaining Mass, Energy, Matter, and Motion

    A philosophical dialogue to necessary to explain the new ideas concerning the nature of mass, energy, and motion.  These will further clarify Cosmosgenesis's basic principles in a strongly philosophical light.
    What is the quantum electron?  
    Matter, specifically individual quantum electrons (McCutcheon's electrons) transform inertia.  Inertia can be considered a wave within a quantum electron or other particle made of quantum electrons.  Inertia can also be called a vector wave with a magnitude and a direction.  
    I believe the absolute vector of any particular particle is likely an infinite set of vectors.  In other words, as McCutcheon states, there is no absolute speed anywhere in the cosmos.  All objects and particles move in relation to other objects and particles.  If we go up high enough in the hierarchy of cosmic systems we will find that the relative motion of a particle in one hyper-dominion (see archon list - hyper-dominions are above meta-dominions) compared to another particle in another hyper-dominion rotating around it is staggering.  This comparison can go on and on up the chain of cosmic celestial architecture without end.  Thus the absolute vector inertia of any particular particle cannot be determined as it is travelling in infinite space.  Even though infinite space cannot be imagined, an infinite series of celestial architecture can be imagined between here and infinity.  
    What is energy?
    Energy is vibration.  Vibration moves mass because mass is resistant to vibration.  Vibrations in the physical are confined to mass, only the quantum electron may transform physical vibration into motion in the physical.  
    Higher levels of vibration (starting with the etheric) are built on the vibrations of the physical through both the expanding quantum electron and the physical vibrations that move quantum electrons around.  
What is mass?
    Mass transforms energy.  Mass does this through resistance.  Mass's resistance to energy is what allows energy to move mass.  Resistance is then moved around by the energy which flows through it in vector form.  The basic unit of mass is the quantum electron.  It is continually expanding.  Mass is separate from energy and transforms it through resistance.  
What is motion?
    Motion is the transformation of energy through space and time by matter.  The motion wave is not the particle, the particle is the quantum electron.  Energy has no smallest unit, the quantum electron can travel at any speed.  
NOTE:  This means quantization is not an inherent property of the universe in terms of energy.  The only reason quanum physics works in this regard is that the mass of the electron is fixed and that the number is fixed at a given light speed (which is how the quanta were discovered in the first place looking at the energy of individual electron light clusters)
    Energy in the physical plane is represented by the motion of matter, and matter transforms physical motion (vector vibrations).  In the higher planes, the motion of energy occurs independent of physical matter, occurring in sheets and waves of transformational dynamic fluxing .  This is the basis of prana, one of the four basic substances of the Indian philosophy of science.  
    Mass is the resistant property of matter and it is based on the expansion, hence the rate of expansion of the quantum electron.  Matter is not mass.  Matter is receptive to energy/motion, while mass is the property of matter that resists motion/energy and other mass.   Matter receives energy/motion and transforms it into mass in motion.  Mass, again resists energy/motion as it is the internal expansion of matter (the quantum electron at its root).  The rate of expansion is an acceleration as described before, it is not a linear expansion.  It is this acceleration that creates resistance to motion and gives a particle its complete character of mass.  
    Matter, by its nature, is separate, but it is also receptive and capable of the unification of vibration (energy).  It is through unification of two separate matter particles that energy/motion is exchanged.  This unification is the brief moment when the particles in motion come into physical contact and engage in mass interaction.  Mass resists both energy/motion and mass, but matter receives energy, so while their masses resist each other each particle receives the vector vibration (motion) of the other through the resistance of their masses.  At this point, the energy/motion transfers itself across the separate mass boundaries (the resistive barrier between the inner space of matter and the outer space) and the energy/motion continues on its course through the matter.  The independent masses are now expressing their new motion vector in 3d space, and the contact between the mass boundaries of each individual particle of matter ceases as they now move in different directions based on the their new vector vibration.  
    Motion/energy can pass through mass, though mass cannot.  Mass offers resistance to motion/energy but matter takes the properties of motion/energy as well as of mass because it receives motion/vibration because it is a motion/vibration itself.  Matter, at its base, is an expanding vibration described as the quantum electron whose property mass, the internal accelerated expansion of matter, creates resistance to the passage of motion/vibration/energy due to its contrasting accelerated expansion which also blocks all other expanding vibrations from passing through it.  (Another way of looking at it is the expanding vibration of matter expands through (as in it passes through it) external motion, and vice versa because all vibrations are transparent through each other, unless they are accelerating.  Mass, represents the resistance to vibration created by accelerated vibration.  Because matter is an accelerating vibration(mass, the acceleration of matter), it blocks all other accelerating vibration from passing through it (all other matter), but allows the passage of non-accelerating vibrations (motion).  
    Matter is energy in motion through accelerated expansion and outside the electron in the physical world energy is also matter in motion through vector vibrational motion (directional motion we observe in all objects).  Energy is the boundary of the electron.  Energy is vibration. All electrons are expanding energy vibrations.  (The word energy is very similar to the word inertia.  An inertial energy is a barrier to energies of that same inertial power(frequency).)
    The existence of multiple planes of matter that operate at a higher expression than this plane of 3d matter must be considered to know the nature of the higher planes of reality.  These higher planes must operate similar to this one but at a higher material level.  This concept is hinted at in the etheric wave concept and the concepts of etheric density which exist co-present with the physical but simultaneously invisible to it.  It is likely that lower planes are transparent to planes above them in some manner.  Higher level math than 3d math must be used to conceive of higher dimensions though mathematics is not the only means of studying these higher planes.  
    (Chemistry is the metauniversal language.  A metauniverse is a cosmic field that has the same physics based on the same expansion rate of the quantum electron (and the same etheric density which sets the expansion rate)).  

Cosmogenesis and The New Physics and Chemistry

    Thee quantum numbers can be possibly explained through Quantum Expansion Theory.  N (see diagram and do math), the principle quantum number can be explained by expansions of the QE envelope surrounding the nucleus.  (Connect to angular momentum and De Broglie's harmonics possibly?) For Pauli's forth quantum number s, magnetic and electric field orientation in primary of a 2ndary QE envelope could be responsible (think alot and do math)
    General Relativity - Gravity "Time Dilation" of Light Explained through McCutcheon's Theories - The Pound–Rebka experiment
    Light Deflection by Large Bodies (Gravity effect) through Quantum Expansion Theory
    Gravity Waves
    Quantum electrons expand in ether whose density determines the overall expansion rate within a cosmic field (a cosmic field would be a self enclosed "Universe" with the same essential physical laws as we currently define the term, though cosmic field is the better term).  
    The expansion rate of the quantum electron is accelerated.  The size of the quantum electron doubles based on a equation of V = 2n(uT)  where the volume of the electron is doubled for every universal time interval (uT) (Thus uT=1) and n = the length of time denominated in uT intervals. This unit itself is likely in flux over the grand scale of time within the cosmic field in which we live.  Our knowledge laws and powers beyond being limited at the moment, let us say that this law is concrete as far as we are concerned until we know more about how this cosmos we live in even exists at all.  
    The density of the etheric determines the rate of the equation that governs electron expansion.  Note that the equation is derived, not the cause of the expansion itself, as an equation is not a cause but an observed natural effect of an unknown metaphysical process which accounts for the physical reality observed.  The etheric creates resistance to expansion, but not to physical vector motion (which is always relative in any case) because it does not involve a change in volume.  Changes in volume effect the etheric because it is compressed as a consequence of the volume that is displaced.  In vector motion, the volume displaced is replaced because the object in motion relinquishes its volume as it moves, but the volume displaced by overall expansion of the electron is not replaced.  The etheric can make the equation V = 2n(uT) with any value of uT = a seconds where a is any number between 0 and infinity.  The etheric density determines the uT as the expansion rate of the electron is always governed by an equation which doubles the volume in time uT.  The function of derived time uT is thus based on a higher unit of time that is a function of another unknown equation based on the resistance of the etheric to expansion pressure (the etheric density) and infinite expansion potential of the electron itself.  The etheric most likely expands at same V = 2n(uT) rate as the physical.  It is the etheric density that determines the expansion rate of the quantum electron.
    (Here we cross two potential infinities, the infinite potential of the etheric to halt all expansion of a matter sphere wave (the quantum electron) within it, and the infinite potential of the matter sphere wave (the quantum electron) itself to expand at infinite speed.  Assuming the matter sphere wave is at infinity by default, we find that if the etheric density is less than 1, then uT < 1 (unknown units)(faster expansion) and if etheric density is greater 1 then uT > 1 (unknown units)(slower expansion).
    Another possibility is that the etheric is shrinking at an accelerated rate and that quantum electrons are holes in the etheric as it shrinks backwards compressing into itself.  Here the rate of expansion of the quantum electron would be based on the etheric rate of shrinkage which would still have to be accelerated as we understand it.  This alternative concept means that some of the new physical models including the expanding etheric wake in the etheric caused by expanding quantum electrons (see Creating Matter and Energy section in the New Cosmology section) would have to be jettisoned or reworked.  This alternative explanation could allow for wakes from vector motion but possibly not from expanding quantum electrons.  
Another possible equation set for the expansion rate of the quantum electron is Rqe = (uT/ 2 eΩ)2 (Rqe is the radius of the quantum electron and eΩ is the etheric density constant of universal 4th dimensional space (etheric space defining physical space).  Universal in this case means the local universe as defined by the space which exists with that particular etheric density.  This suggests a relationships between etheric density and time that proposes that the etheric exists outside of universal time and in fact regulates it on some manner.  Volume (as derived from the radius (Rqe)) here however not being absolutely mathematical in nature represents a relative precipitation of form in serial infinite vector space (it is serially infinite because it is infinite bi-directionally in scalar geometric analysis)) and where Rqe' (Derivative or rate of change of the quantum electron) = uT/eΩ
    A major problem exists with the definition of the electron in our current particle physics models that must be addressed.  The electron that our scientists call the electron is not the electron of the expansion theory.  Our current particles we call electrons are understood as having a mass - 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg. However, this must be wrong in expansion theory if we examine the entire breath of the theory.  Electrons compose clusters which make up light packets.  If their mass was so high, then photons (electron clusters in light) would weigh a significant amount more than they do, and would consequently have a much higher energy.  Using Plank's and Einstein's equations a photon of 500 nm wavelength (blue-green in color) has a mass of 4.417 X 10^ -36 kg, which is over 200,000 times smaller than the mass of the official electron.  The same light frequency, if we use the quanta as the basis particle of the light cluster/photon uses up approximately 1.5 million protons per second to maintain (see mass of true electron in Appendix).  This means it would take 12 billion years for a mole of protons (about 1 gram of mass) to be used up generating this wavelength of light using the quantum, the true electron, as the basic particle (see later discussion concerning the mass of the true electron).  
If we use the current particle physics electron on the other hand, assuming an equivalence of one electron mass to one quanta we get that the same mole will last about .003 seconds, or in one second the weakest light of 500 nm would use 325 grams of matter.  This clearly cannot be the case.  The same light would require, continuing this analysis, over 10 million kilograms, or 10,000 tons to shine for one year.  If this were the case, then shining a flashlight using only one weakest possible beam of light should vaporize the entire flashlight into light in a about 3 or 4 seconds.  Clearly, that does not happen.  The photons, thus, cannot be made of electrons which are much, much more massive than them, which is how we understand them currently, but photons can be made of quanta without any of issues for the larger subatomic particle we now call the electron.  This means that the experimental particle called the electron is not in fact McCutcheon's electron, which I have referred to as the true electron to avoid confusion.  The current particle we call the electron must in fact be another particle made of true electrons that is stable in its configuration, much as protons and neutrons.  We must also now rename the electron to avoid confusion with the true electron, but first its true particle nature and properties must be explored to contextualize our new understanding of the old electron and its part in the subatomic zoo of particles (electron clusters) made of true electrons.
    Concerning the electron as we know it today, it may be that the electron is a ball of true electrons consisting of the whole amount of true electrons bouncing off the nucleus either completely or within what is called a shell.  A shell may or may not be a separate shell (in reference to standard chemical orbital theory) above the nucleus but only an amount of true electrons that can be expelled from a true electron envelope by nuclear expansion or true electron cluster impact successfully and remain stable as a cluster outside the nucleus.  This would mean, if this is the case, that there is some connection between the mass of the electron, the number of true electrons involved, and the discoveries of quantum physics with regard to the quantum condition and the angular momentum connection to the mass of the current electron (as used by Bohr in his equation).  
    McCutcheon's definition of electron clusters doesn't add up completely.  If the quantum is a single electron, it should have a unit of MASS, not a unit of impulse as implied by Plank's equation E = hv.  Based on his description of electron clusters, the amount of energy to create smaller electron clusters is not reflected in mass/energy ratio of the higher ends of the EM spectrum.  If a large electron cluster and a small electron cluster pass the same point at the speed of light, the larger electron cluster should have more energy than the small one assuming they are moving at the same speed.  The wavelength would increase, but the amount of mass passing a given point of space at the same time would remain the same or would decrease if we use basic geometry.  This is the opposite of what we should expect if the smaller clusters are at the high end of the spectrum.  There is something that is obviously missing here.  The problem may be with the way we interpret the E=hv experiment itself or that Mark's may have been mistaken about which electron clusters of light were larger.
    Mark's ideas about light being composed of electron clusters is correct when we see that the quanta is in fact the true electron, which is the basic particle of all matter and of light photons.  I believe that all matter is composed of these true electrons, and I believe these true electrons are expanding at a fixed accelerating rate.  I also believe it is possible to ascertain the nature of the true electron from what we know about physical constants so far including Plank's constant.  
    Redshift and blueshift on local scales are still due to the fact that if the source of electromagnetic radiation is moving towards or away from you, the number of clusters per second that pass a given point at any one instance would be altered either by having more clusters per second, increasing the apparent wavelength, or by having fewer clusters, decreasing the apparent wavelength.  Long distance red shift could still be caused by Mark's idea that electron clusters passing through magnetic fields and matter may be gaining/losing mass and increasing/decreasing in size or (I believe) perhaps losing speed.  This idea has actually been around for awhile and has been suggested by other opponents of the Big Bang Theory.  Indeed, light does not have to travel at the speed of light according to this interpretation of electron expansion theory.  It could conceivably travel at any speed.  Light moving slower would have a lower wavelength, while light moving faster would have a longer wavelength because the number of clusters that pass per second would be higher regardless of the size of the clusters.  We must assume that it is still the wavelength based on the number of clusters per second that determines the frequency rather than their size.  
    I have found the mass of the true electron using Einstein's (which still applies to light itself as a measure of its energy and matter content) and Plank's equations.  This mass is approximately 7.3622 X 10-51 Kg or if we use the traditional kinetic energy equation it is half of this value.  Using Einstein's and Plank's equations it is possible to calculate the mass of each true electron cluster/spiral (photon) which composes an individual true electron clusters of EM radiation from the Terahertz band up (the boundary between true electron clusters (photons) and true electron bands of microwave/radio band radiation from Mark's description of EM radiation) through the high end gamma rays.  Incidentally, this means that a single true electron travelling at the speed of light, if impacting another electron or an object at rest, would impart 6.626 X 10-34 joules of energy.  All of this however, must still be reexamined because we need a perfect understanding of Plank's equation and its experiment first.
The application of these equations using mass as an indicator of the true electron show that Mark may have been mistaken when he assumed the gamma ray end of the spectrum contained smaller true electron clusters than the lower end of the spectrum.  This is based on the fact that as light travels at the speed of light when it is released from a source (from the point of view of the source) then if a given photon has a higher energy, then it must have higher mass in order to account for the energy being higher.  It has been well established through plank's equation that gamma and x-rays have higher energies individually than EM radiation lower down on the EM spectrum.  The one explanation that can be accepted given our current understanding of physics is that the clusters at the high end are larger or that they are possibly not clusters but in fact twists on a corkscrew shaped stream of electrons or that the clusters are not actually physically touching (cannot physically touch/can overlap) so that more of them can be compressed into a single stream from a source.  The larger clusters may not actually be physically in contact with one another and thus can be squeezed tighter together.  A third possibility is that the clusters are all the same size and that they pass a given point in larger numbers because they are not physically touching or can potentially overlap without disruption.  In any case the energy and mass constraints of the system must not be violated and only studies can determine which of these possibilities is real.  It would be possible, with the large body of already existing data, to perhaps determine this without any additional new experiments on light.  It may be simply that we must reexamine very thoroughly Max Plank's equation to discover what it exactly that is going on.  
    (The idea of Mark's true electron clusters as light must now be reconciled with certain physical constraints implied by what we currently know from existing established physics.  Certain issues are suggested by Plank's black body radiation equation E = hv.  The first is that the energy of gamma and x-rays is much higher than that of infrared light using this equation with current known outcomes of the experiment.  Based on a mass and energy analysis, if the electron clusters of gamma and x-ray light are much, much smaller than those of infrared or visible light, then how can they be smaller yet have more energy without them moving faster?  Yet we know all light travels at 299,000 km/s from stationary source to stationary point.  Plank's entire experiment has to be reconsidered here!  But it is also the basis of what we know about the quanta, the true electron itself!  A deep investigation of the data is required.)
    Another issue regarding true electron clusters is the manner they are ejected from electrical fields as light by atoms.  Mark believes that the ejection occurs in the gaps between atoms.  While this analogy may work in the case of metals and electrical current in a wire, there are problems with the idea as it applies to ionized gases because the gaps between the molecules of these gases would not be the same size.  It seems likely that the atoms themselves may in fact eject the true electrons (in the form of clusters/spirals) from the true electron envelope surrounding the nucleus.  
    When an true electron or an true electron cluster strikes a nucleus, it imparts momentum and energy into the true electron envelope that surrounds the nucleus.  The result is that the envelope may expand because vector motion is conserved inside the envelope when it is transferred from a bombarding outer source into the envelope itself.  The phenomenon would be equivalent to heating gas and the gas expanding because of the additional energy contained in the gas system.  
    The property of differential atomic bonds must be considered.  Based on expansion theory electrons expand.  If neutrons consist of expanding electrons why isn't the number of neutrons important in determining the chemical nature of the atom?  Why do isotopes exist and yet their chemical properties are often nearly indistinguishable from one another?
    The explanation must be that protons are the only subatomic particles that create the structure of the nucleus from which bouncing electrons create the electron cloud surrounding it.  So neutrons must exist in a manner that makes them "invisible" to the bouncing electrons.  My first solution was to consider the possibility that neutrons existed not as solid particles in the nucleus but as fields similar to magnetic fields and this hypothesis can be called the neutron nuclear magnetic field hypothesis.    My second thought was that if neutrons formed a shell whose size was determined by the protons in some fashion, then the electrons would be bouncing off the neutron shell whose size was determined somehow by the protons, though this system I couldn't work out quite in my head as to how such a system would work.  My third and final thought was the idea that protons could form the outer shell of the nucleus with neutrons inside them where their mass/volume would not affect the electron clouds bouncing off the nucleus.  This is the idea which makes the most sense in terms of the physical consistency with what we know so far and this hypothesis can be called the proton nuclear shell hypothesis.  There is also the consideration of exotic explanations such as the idea that the neutron is a energy phantom of internal processes inside the atom, though more analysis would be required to ascertain its exact nature.
    Another part of the theory of new chemistry revolves around explaining the differential properties between atoms that we learn in modern chemistry without expansion theory.  We know certain atoms are more electronegative than others.  We know that the right side of the periodic table has elements that tend to absorb electrons, while the left side metals tend to give electrons.  The new physical theory of chemistry suggests a plausible explanation.
    Firstly, if different atomic nucleus's had different sizes it would account for the different properties very clearly.  A large atomic nucleus would have a higher nuclear expansion pressure and would tend to push electrons away.   So metals should generally have larger nucleuses as they tend to donate electrons.  Non-metals then must have smaller nucleuses and the differential between the expansion pressure of metals and that of non-metals must be explained by the fact the metals push their electrons towards the non-metals once these atom specific electron clouds overlap.  
    Additionally the new model of the atom would have to take into account some interesting facts concerning isotopes.  There is a small chemical difference between isotopes with one major general exception, hydrogen's three isotopes.  Deuterium and tritium are said to be somewhat different in the way they chemically react to basic protium which is single proton hydrogen.  Deuterium and tritium each have one and two neutrons respectively.  Both are said to have generally stronger bonds than ordinary hydrogen.  With a complete suite of properties to compare deuterium and tritium we could find the physical changes in the nucleus that corresponds to the chemical properties observed.  
    This would also be the easiest starting point in our thought experiment about the nature of the neutron - proton relationship within the atom as hydrogen is the simplest atom known.  
    (Old argument repeated: The idea of the nucleus must be rethought based on McCutcheon's theories.  Protons are responsible for nearly all chemical properties of the vast majority of atoms, while neutrons are not responsible for almost any of them but add mass to the nucleus.  If electrons are bouncing off the nucleus, this means that neutrons cannot contribute their true electrons to the expanding nucleus or they would have an effect on the chemical properties of an element.  The solution to this is that neutrons must exist in a outer shell of the nucleus much like a magnetic field/outer shell where their true electrons would not directly interact with the electrons or where they form the effective outer boundary of the nucleus.  The protons would then determine the flow of the neutrons and remain near the core of the nucleus.  Electrons would, in either case, bounce off the surface of the nucleus whether it was made of the protons or the neutron shell.  Neurons may or may not maintain their individual particle natures in the nucleus in this new concept.  
    Atoms with higher electronegativity would be so because the relative size of the nucleus is smaller, so their bouncing true electrons in atomic envelope would provide less resistance to new electrons entering the envelope.  In this concept, the larger the nucleus, the more expansion pressure exists in the atomic envelope surrounding the nucleus because a larger nucleus expands with greater force than a smaller one.  The nucleus is doubling every uT interval, so a larger nucleus doubles in the same time a smaller one does, creating more pressure because of its larger expansion area.  This is related to the concept Mark mentions for larger planets having larger gravitational pulls based on their volume, not their mass.  This means that the reason alkaline metals give their electrons up so easily is their nucleus's are larger than other atoms so they literally push their electrons out of their envelope due to the higher pressure within from the larger expanding nucleus.  So fluorine, oxygen, chlorine and other electronegative halogens and non metals are so because their relatively small nucleus's do not create as much pressure in their atomic envelope, which means electrons easily enter them because there is less resistance.  )
    Below the level of protons exist many different true electron clusters of smaller and smaller sizes that are not incorporated into different light beams in light clusters/spirals.  Currently science has the concept of a tiny particle called a neutrino which can pass through huge amounts of matter without interacting with it.  While the neutrino itself is probably not the neutrino we currently think it is in the standard model, small true electron clusters hurled at tremendous speed would have a certain degree of penetrative power either directly or through secondary, tertiary, etc. clusters created by impact with a wall or deep object.  While it is questionable if a small true electron cluster of this nature could pass through miles upon miles of lead as it is alleged, it could very conceivably pass through a few hundred feet if it has sufficient energy on impact, or if it arrived in large waves/groups.  During Supernova 1987A, neutrino detectors detected a huge spike of neutrinos through secondary decay (secondary particles created upon impact) in large underground water tanks.  It would be expected that in the event of a tremendous number of small true electron clusters arriving en masse from a supernova, for instance, that they could indeed create such an effect as passing through several hundred feet of concrete and causing such a mass release of secondary decay particles.  These tanks do also detect other decay events, though some scientists have questioned whether these are in fact neutrinos as the stand model describes and not some radioactive byproduct of the surrounding ground and walls.  During the arrival of the energetic true electron clusters from Supernova 1987A, there was most definitely a penetration into the water tanks secondary rays caused by the arrival of these particles.  According to current stellar models, neutrinos, in fact, represent 99%+ of a supernova's energy output.  While the current models are questionable in so many regards, the idea that much of the energy of such an explosion could be released in the form of clusters of true electrons that would not be identified as light, but instead as freely expanding true electrons outside the framework of recognizable light beams or normal EM radiation because they would not exist as a stream but as individual true electron clusters expelled from a core explosion of a electromagnetic and/or nuclear variety must be considered as a possible explanation of the existence of what we call neutrinos  Such neutrinos would be in all manner of sizes from 1 true electron all the way up to perhaps the size of a proton (though this would qualify them as a cosmic ray at this size) and thus would have a large range of masses and energy.  They would still be absorbed by a sufficiently thick slab of matter that would likely be far less than the amount currently assumed.  These true electron clusters that we may call non-photon sub-proton true electron clusters would be very important in determining invisible fluxes of energy in the Cosmos because they would be present just about everywhere and could alter the equations of magnetic field absorption of cosmic rays (for one, see The New Cosmology) if they are responsible for transferring large amounts of energy into magnetic fields.  These largely invisible type of true electron clusters are certainly part of the general energy-matter flux of the cosmos.  
    Upon the possibility of true electron cluster (protons, atoms, others) subduction by magnetic field.

Cosmogenesis and The New Cosmology

The Infinite Expanding Cosmos

    Everywhere we look towards the ends of our power to resolve objects in telescopes, the edge of known space as our ability to see distant galaxies and quasars, we find more and more galaxies and quasars.  Every time we put a new more technologically advanced telescope up into orbit and peer into areas of the sky that appear to be empty, we find more and more galaxies and quasar than we thought we should find.  Since this has been our experience, there really is no reason to believe, other than through Big Bang Cosmology, that as we continue to expand our ability to resolve objects 100x, 1000x, and 10000x and more further away than the current limit that we should expect to see anything other than more and more distant galaxies and quasars coming into view.  Even if we find a cosmic void in all this somewhere, peering into it could we not see what we currently call another universe (Cosmic Field in the language of the New Science) somewhere in the Great Beyond?  How long would we have to search before we confirm this?  If we have all of infinite time to search, it is sure that we could find more Cosmic Fields out there, and that we could keep counting them forever.  This then brings us to the very idea of infinity itself.
    Infinity is an impossible thing to grasp mentally.  No matter how hard your mind tries, it simply isn't going to wrap its thought around it.  It could be simple speculation that the invention of the Big Bang Cosmology was a product of our inability to feel comfortable with infinity and the infinite.  We needed a story with a beginning and an end of make us feel as though we had the answers.  The mystery of the infinite simply was too much for our minds to handle.  Indeed, low and behold, our holy book, The Bible, clearly says there was a beginning where God created this world.  The idea of not having a beginning was somehow incomprehensible so it was natural that we designed a cosmology that had a neat beginning and a probable end right in line with our holy books.  The Bible states that God said let there be light, and there was light, and the Big Bang Cosmology essentially states that a huge fireball of light came from some possibly random unknowable source before the Big Bang.  
    And yet there were some who questioned this assertion and insisted that the Cosmos was infinite, having no beginning or end, unlike the things of the cosmos.  Some of these people were the Steady State Theorists and the Electrical/Plasma Cosmologists after them.  Others where members of the dominant consensus group, the Big Bang Cosmologists themselves.
    The whole idea of an end was, in fact, so disturbing to even some of the proponents of the Big Bang that they began to speculate with multiverses, parallel dimensions, and plank scale quantum fluctuations that could potentially create another Big Bang again (sometimes right inside our Universe).  Other Big Bang proponents stuck to the idea that there would be a Big Crunch where the Universe would collapse in on itself from gravity and then bounce back afterwards in another Big Bang.  Debates continue to this day.  
    If we truly search our hearts though, knowledge tells us that a beginning to all is impossible and that Life has always existed and will exist.  It is not a rational proof that tells us this truth, but our own higher soul that knows without a doubt.  Some choose to ignore this knowledge because it places their rational mind and ego in a lower light.  Others choose to avoid this truth because they have no way of proving it materially.  Others choose to believe that Life ends because of their own inner pain.  For whatever reason, we choose what we believe regarding Life.  I have always chosen to listen to my higher knowledge when it came down to a real choice.  Everything I know tells me that the Cosmos is infinite, has always been here, and will always be here.  It is for this reason that I have chosen to defend an infinite Cosmos as an idea that is grounded in truth.  And while that truth may appear unprovable to the rational mind, I will argue it is because the rational mind has not had the time to observe the Cosmos to truly know its secrets.  
    Let me begin by taking through the logic of infinity.  This is a mathematical and philosophical dialogue to give you an idea of exactly how big infinity is.  No matter how large of a number you can conceive, an infinite number of that number can still fit in infinity.  No matter how large a system you can conceive, an infinite number of those systems can exist in infinity.  Infinity is beyond boundaries.  The nature of infinite is represented to the ration mind by the concept of the Infinity Cracker, a number so large as to be inconceivable to the rational mind.  The exercise of the Infinity Cracker is to show to your rational mind just how small and insignificant it is to the tremendous potential of the infinite.  The bounds of Life are not beyond reason, but as we see mind is too limited to understand the ends of reason in an infinite cosmos.

The Infinity Cracker and the Cosmic Supercomputer

    Lets say we were going to create something akin to Douglas Adam's massive supercomputer in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which as a processor could crunch a massive stream of data into something meaningful like a huge number.  Let's call this class of objects Cosmic Supercomputers and note that they have a level and an ability to process a certain amount of data depending on their level.  We have determined the amount of data we wish to crunch ahead of time and built the system to the specifications required.  Now we need a massive data stream for it to process until the equation is done.  
    What we  have decided to do is to convert an entire MetaDominion (a type of Cosmic Field) into its base true electrons and then feed those true electrons in groups of two to stand for binary digits in a massive data stream.  We have chosen one that has (6.6)150 true electrons.  Now to understand what (6.6)150 means mathematically you have to understand that a trillion is 112.  If we write out (6.6)150 we have to write out 66 followed by 149 digits.  Now the total number of true electrons is 66 followed by 149 digits or (6.6)150.  We have however converted this into a binary number of 0's and 1's so that we have (3.3)150 total binary digits in the number we have created by evaporating the MetaDominion and using it to make a binary number stream.  
    Our basic computation is to find a level of the cosmos representing 10^2(3.3)^150 levels as described in the spirit/cosmic levels of this book.  Giving an idea of this number is rather difficult as it has far more digits than there are true electrons in our current entire visible cosmos.  Our equation is not done yet however.  Once we find this level of the cosmos we then take its cosmic field and do the same thing all over again.  We do for 2(3.3)^150 times, going up to the next level with each single cycle.  Our computer is so powerful that it can process the entire 2(3.3)^150 cycles in one second.  So then we continue to allow it to perform this same operation with larger and larger systems for a duration of exactly 2(3.3)^150 years.  At the end of this time, our cosmic supercomputer has reached the limits of memory and processing capacity.  Now, obviously we need one that is 2(3.3)^150 times more powerful, but we will stop the analysis at this point to show that even this massive amount can be dwarfed by even larger systems forever.  There is no limit in an infinite cosmos.  The only other possibility is that I am more loving, intelligent, powerful, and imaginative than the whole cosmos, and that is a ridiculous absurdity.

The Analogy of the Television Cosmos In A Store Window

    The cosmos is capable of expanding the amount of matter in it, even if it is infinite and it contains an infinite series of cosmic fields.  Imagine seeing a section of an infinite cosmos in a series of televisions sitting in front of you in a shop window.  Each window contains a few million galaxies and some odd stars poking around.  Now, you might say that there isn't any more space available to create new galaxies without crowding out the old ones, but if space between the galaxies expand, the galaxies, in relative reference, shrink in the screen that you are looking at thus creating more space to make new galaxies!  If space expands through the motion of galaxies, then more space can be created, temporarily lowering the "density" of the cosmic field in question.  Thus the cosmos can not only be infinite, it can expand infinitely within its own infinity by expanding the amount of space available in order to insert new matter into the fold.  The process by which matter might be created will be discussed later.

The New Cosmology

    (Plasma rotations or collective volume expansion. Solving the problem of galaxy rotation without dark matter.)  
    Our current understanding of how stars and planets are created are largely wrong.  Planets and stars are at best rarely formed from gas clouds, but most often are formed by various forms of planetary and stellar fission.  Stars give birth to stars and planets, planets give birth to planets and moons.  This process is possible because our understanding of the inner workings of planets and stars is incomplete and incorrect.
    The idea that stars and planets can give birth by this process can be found in the Electrical Universe model as well as by some other writers.  
    Our current understanding of stellar astrophysics is wrong.  Stars are not powered by nuclear fusion.  The entire theory of nuclear fusion rests on the idea of quantum tunneling which is based on an entirely ridiculous way of looking at the physics of the very small.  Quantum tunneling is based on a probability model of particles, the same probability model that suggests that a standard electron is everywhere and nowhere at once and that by observing it we create it by collapsing the wave function of the particle.  
    (Add-on Explanation for video only   
All of stellar nuclear physics is based on the theory of quantum tunneling supported by the nuclear fusion interpretations of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram commonly taught in physics and astronomy courses.  Plasma cosmologists (SIGHT) have been offering an alternative explanation for stellar evolution for as long as plasma physics has existed.  There are several serious problems with the theory of nuclear fusion as offered.
Quantum tunneling is based on the idea that a particle is a wave and a particle at the same time.  Now in the macro world if an object strikes another object it bounces off its surface or gets stuck in the surface.  In quantum tunneling the object would magically cross through the other object to the other side.  The idea behind this is that instead of a solidly physical particle you have particle that is a wave equation instead.  
Despite the fact that this blatantly violates common sense which says if there is a wall it cannot be magically crossed.  It also violates the principle of physicality in matter.   
Quantum Tunneling is necessary to support current ideas of nucleosynthesis because according to the older theories of particle interaction it takes hundreds of millions of degrees K to create the conditions for hydrogen nuclear fusion.  Because of quantum tunneling theory, a loophole was found to justify lowering the required temperature to 15 million K.  This then allowed the theorists to claim that hydrogen fusion could take place in the Sun based on their models of temperature and pressure.)
    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was used to develop the quantum tunneling theory.  
    Quantum tunneling states that under certain conditions a proton can magically "tunnel" through the "electrostatic barrier" between itself and another proton.  This is done through luck essentially.  The lucky proton hops over the energy barrier and fuses with its neighbor.  I believe that H-H fusion is much more akin to a car crash than a hoping over barriers through magic because hydrogen is a physical atom made of physical quantum electrons that when smashed together at really high speeds fuse just as if you drove two cars at each other at 80 mph then the two cars will fuse.  We don't say though that energy was gained from the crash.
    Interestingly, laboratory fusion of two basic hydrogen atoms (not deuterium or tritium) is difficult to  achieve because the highest temperature ever achieved in a laboratory is shy of a billion degrees and it takes about 2- 3 billion degrees for hydrogen fusion to occur.  Yet we are told that in the center of stars (of which we know nothing about) temperatures of 15 million degrees is sufficient for fusion because of the magic trick insert of quantum tunneling.  Yet we cannot produce this result in a laboratory.  We are told to believe this in spite of lack of evidence contrary to all scientific thinking.
    The science of the energies gained and lost in fusion is poorly understood.  I will argue that in fact, two base hydrogen atoms cannot be smashed together to gain any energy at all.  Instead, the energy of the collision will be offset by being absorbed by the new deuterium nucleus and the net energy gain will be zero.  There is evidence to support my position which I will present later when I am past the primer point of this argument.  Bear in mind that this does not discount the possibility of generating energy from deuterium, as it has gained a substantial amount of stored energy that can now be liberated (from the original H-H collision), merely that H-H fusion will not liberate additional energy because it actually absorbs the energy (in the form of motion) from the motion of the 2 H nuclei as they impact into each other.  Now without the magical quantum tunneling this takes billions of degrees.  Stars cannot be powered by an energy drain!
    A hypothetical mechanism can be constructed to account for what might happen when two protons (hydrogen nuclei) collide.  The energy of the motion becomes locked into the structure of the new deuterium nucleus that is created in the high energy impact.  One plausible hypothesis is that the impact creates a double nucleus with one shell of electrons on the outside and one shell on the inside.  Because of this rearrangement, the pent up motion of the collision is stored within the structure of this double shell in the form of expanding electrons bouncing between the inner shell (neutron ?) and the outer shell (proton ?).  This energy can be liberated in fusion of deuterium or tritium, but not basic hydrogen as it has no stored motion until the impact creates the new physical configuration whereby motion can be stored in this manner as structural rearrangement of pressure in this complex manner.  Obviously more thought has to go into the idea in order to get a better grasp of the exact workings of this model or plausible other models.
    This inner shell for neutrons and outer shell for protons would explain why protons are only important in determining the atom's primary chemical characteristics as the neutrons would be inside the shell of protons and so have no impact on the electron cloud bouncing off the nucleus.  Now the exception would be that because the hydrogen atom is very small, the change in the nucleus from a single proton to double the size with a proton and neutron would provide some change in chemical properties.  
    Mark McCutcheon's theory shows clearly that our current theories regarding the nature of the atom are false.  Our concepts of barriers to fusion may be true, but we no longer can claim that an atom is both a particle and a wave simultaneously in the manner we understand it today.  Our concepts of how fusion takes place must also be erroneous.  
    Stars are powered externally from their magnetic fields as hinted by Theosophists and Nikola Tesla.  Cosmic rays bombarding the outer magnetic field of the Sun transfer their energy to the field which then is able to transfer this energy into the stellar core and either releasing it as energy through magnetic field reconnection (the same process observed on the surface during solar flares) or storing this same energy by adding matter to the core of the Sun.  A mathematical analysis of the amount of cosmic ray energy bombarding the Sun's magnetic field in any one moment shows that there is more than sufficient power to power the entire Sun.  Mark's understanding of how magnetic fields worked allowed me to see this possibility because he shows that magnetic fields are continuous matter streams and sheets in the form of quantum electron sheets and streams.  There is a significant body of real world laboratory evidence  that compressing a magnetic field in a laboratory liberates energy through a process called magnetic reconnection.  The Sun's magnetic field does not collapse onto itself due to the pressure because it is continually refreshed from the core and because the speed of the quantum electrons that make up the field can increase.   
    We have been told that stars are solid hydrogen to the core, yet we have no reliable way of knowing this.  We have been told that stars are 15 million degrees at their cores all based on computer models built on unproven assumptions regarding stellar development and evolution.  It has all been assumed, and yet we have no real evidence other than the assurances of astronomers that they do in fact have the science.  I cannot believe them because their entire case does not add up to sense.
    There is extensive indirect evidence of cosmic ray powering of stars and planets.  Calculations here (show equations and sources) estimates of the amount of power generated by cosmic ray bombardment of the Sun's magnetic field in a step by step approach.   These figures (show figures and calculations) show that comparison between the magnetic fields of the Sun and the 8 major planets and their approximate estimated current energy outputs and the estimated strength of cosmic rays bombarding their individual magnetic fields.  These figures show a clear correlation between the size of the magnetic field and the output of energy from the planet and is in correlation with estimated cosmic ray bombardment.  Indeed two of the four planets (Venus and Mars) that have no observable outflow of energy from their cores in the form of volcanic activity have almost no magnetic fields at all. Discuss Jupiter's moons.
    What is at the core of planets and stars?  I believe the answer to this question is that stars and planets both have solid hyper dense cores (with a few exceptions).  At very high pressures, radioactive elements become stable.  As a consequence, there should be a huge variety of material densities between that of ordinary matter and that of neutron star (and denser?).  Concepts such as degenerate matter (in white dwarves) or neutron star matter must be reexamined in light of the new understanding of the atom that Mark McCutcheon has forwarded.  Matter is likely to be stable at all manner of higher densities under sufficient pressure.  So what is at the core of the planet and stars? The cores would be composed of material between the density of normal matter and neutron star matter.  The exact density would vary depending on the planet or star in question.  Gravity would not increase based on the density of the material as gravity is based on volume not mass, and it is not a force but an expansion.  This means that a neutron star as we currently understand it would have no greater gravitation force than a 20 mile wide asteroid of the same dimensions.  It is questionable whether we know anything about neutron stars, but I believe it will eventually be shown they are not 20 miles wide and that they are not composed of only neutrons.  Current Electric Universe theories claim that pulsar (a type of neutron star) radiation can be created by a binary star system rotating around each other (site and research).  I believe that eventually a neutron star will be discovered to be merely a much denser white dwarf with similar dimensions perhaps a bit larger and that most of the radiation from these stars come from their magnetic fields similar to a very bright aurora borealis effect or large scale permanent flare type event.  Pulsars may be these same stars in a binary pair, which according to both Cosmogenesis and the Electrical Universe occur because a star has undergone a binary fission in the aftermath of a nova/supernova type explosion.
    Planetary and stellar magnetic  fields can expand and collapse through long cycles of planetary and stellar development.  The huge stellar and planetary magnetic fields support tremendous electrical fields in the core.  These electrical fields must be kept stable by the core, because if they become too powerful they can melt parts of the core destabilizing the entire stellar system.  A large scale magnetic/electrical field overload and core explosion would cause what we call novas and supernovas.  Stars gain mass slowly as do planets unless they are absorbed or destroyed in collision or possibly a rare total explosion.  This occurs through energy/mass transfer from the stellar/planetary magnetic field to the core possibly through the core electrical field as it increases in strength with greater and greater magnetic field size and cosmic ray pressure.  What stabilizes the whole star or planet is the mass in the core, and for this reason the more massive and dense the core, the larger the magnetic field can expand into space until overload occurs.  A certain minimum core mass is required for a planet to become a star, otherwise the core cannot sustain the tremendous electrical field necessary to continue projecting the magnetic field into space.  
    All of this requires a reexamination of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (show diagram) and how stars actually move through it.  It requires fairly massive stars to move from red dwarf stars  up the main sequence (our classification of a standard star is called main sequence) and across to giant and then supergiant status.  In this respect a star may take a zigzag trip through the Hertz-Russell diagram.  Some stars would not have the mass in their core to sustain the magnetic and electrical field pressure of giant star status and would never enter it at all.  Others would have very massive and dense cores and could go through the entire current understood stellar cycle only through the new mechanism proposed.  Some stars may begin as red dwarves, work their way up the main sequence towards yellow and larger dwarves and then take off into the giant and supergiant evolutions.  They could also conceivably rotate between blue main sequence and red giant status based on conditions in the star and in the surrounding magnetic field and cosmic ray environment.  The entire cycle is based on the mass in the core, so massive stars will evolve from a rocky planetary size white dwarf type body all the way up to a supergiant. The mass, again is what will allow the star to sustain its massive largely external magnetic field and largely internal electrical field.
    Earth and the other planets with active magnetic fields get most of their internal heat from the activity of planetary magnetic fields as they are bombarded by solar and cosmic rays.  Most of this energy comes from the Sun in the form of solar rays.  
    Black holes are not black holes they are black stars of very large dimensions that do not have sufficient energy being released from their cores to shine.  They are essentially very large planet type objects who happen to be very large and dense.  Once every while a big one shines and we call it a quasar.  As such a black hole should simply be called a dark quasar because it is not a hole.  These large objects also give birth to stars and other smaller dark quasars of intermediate size.  They are instrumental in the binary fission of galaxies to give birth to new galaxies.
    Black holes, if they do strip matter from their neighboring stars, do not do so through gravity as it is currently understood because gravity is not based on mass but on volume.  It is possible that if matter is stripped it is done so through magnetic or electrical field effects.
    There is a huge amount of material beyond this detailing the possible mechanism of the development of planets and stars through their cores.  I will go into this very briefly.
    As stars increase in size they form planets and smaller stars if they undergo what is called a supernova or nova.  This is caused by an unstable bit of hyper dense core that explodes when pressure is reduced in the aftermath of a magnetic field explosion.  The cores are highly unstable due to the amount of energy they contain and if the pressure reduces they can explode.  Also under very high energy of very large magnetic fields parts of the core can break off and drift to where they are unstable.  Another possibility is that the magnetic field, when built up to its maximum energy level for a particular planet or star achieves and inner frequency (based on speed of electrons cycling and perhaps magnetic sheet/stream shape) high enough that a layer of the planet or stars core (most likely the top layer) begins absorbing the majority of the energy in the magnetic field and subsequently explodes violently and sometimes breaking off some of the core which, when ejected, forms the core of a new planet (or occasionally a star).  This is entirely speculative, but makes more sense than other ideas I have heard so far.
    Exotic material present in deep cores may also include high density crystals of "normal" matter that are formed under extremely high pressures.  The core would be an extraordinary composite of exotic matter both high density metals (the vast majority of the material most likely?) as well as high density composites.  The magnetic field and/or electrical field energy would slowly grow these under the right conditions.  The magnetic and/or electrical field would likely have different "frequencies" based on the speed of quantum electrons sheets and streams as well as other qualities of the magnetic and electrical field.  Under the right frequencies, matter may be copied from the field and it would depend on the material being copied or one atomic element could be converted to another(Stellar alchemy).  Obviously I know very little about this right now (and am in the process of learning more) but this is a loose summation of a process I believe is ongoing in stars and planets.
    After a magnetic field collapse and nova/supernova a star would again revert to a planetary form we call a white dwarf.  From this point it would slowly build up its magnetic field again until it was a star.  This would take tens or hundreds of billions of years.  
    Stars and planets go through 4 cycles of development, earth (planet), water (water planet/early gas giant), air (gas giant), and finally fire (star).  Not all planets could become stars, it would depend on their lifecycle, but if left to themselves they would.
    Stars and planets have much longer lifecycles than we currently understand.  Stars do expand into what we call giants and super giants towards the ends of their lives (with a few very low mass exceptions) but instead of dying completely into "white dwarves" they begin growing again once they have reached the end of their currently understood cycle.  Each star has a base strength of magnetic field that exists at its low end of development as a white dwarf/planet.  This is based on its total core mass which is, again, much higher than what we believe it to be currently (probably 1000 fold or more).  Each stellar life cycle from white dwarf to planet to gas giant to star and back again occurs through hundreds of billions of years.  The larger lifecycle would continue to expand the star's core mass each cycle.  Let's say that each cycle the star will expand the average mass of its core by around .1%.  Based on figures from the total energy potential of the cosmic rays bombarding a star's magnetic field it would likely take about 17.5-70 billion years or so for a star to gather one solar mass of material assuming it had the same magnetic field size as the Sun and the same amount of cosmic ray bombardment that we currently observe for the solar magnetic field.  Because the star expels a good deal of mass during a supernova it must be assumed that it spends longer than 17.5-70 billion years gathering energy and matter in its core so the estimates on each lifecycle must be between 35 billion (if a star ejects half the mass it absorbs) and 700 billion years (if a star ejects 10 times at the maximum estimate of mass absorption).  If a star continued to process at this rate over the eons without being absorbed by another star it would eventually become what we currently call a galactic black hole but is in fact a galactic black core star which would occasionally flare up as a quasar at the center of a galaxy of its own.  This process would take a long time, and the vast, vast majority of stars would be absorbed before they ever reached this level of development.  
    Our current understanding of novas is also flawed.  It is my believe that some novas will be found to come from non white dwarf stars.  The ones that do, however, are not the result of gravitational accretion of matter on the surface of white dwarves.  The reason is simply because Mark McCutcheon has shown that the gravity of white dwarf near the size of the Earth would have a similar gravity to Earth regardless of the amount of mass in it.  If so, then it could not gravitationally draw gas from a nearby star's surface using this means.  In addition, if H-H fusion doesn't create energy, then there could not be an explosion on the surface of the white dwarf due to pressure that does not exist even if the pressure existed in the first place.  Why do white dwarves explode periodically then?  It is likely due to their magnetic and electrical fields and unstable aspects of the near surface hyper dense material present under intense electrical and magnetic field stress.  The stellar magnetic field can release energy into the surface of a newly formed White Dwarf as it is being bombarded by energy from its neighbor and at certain internal magnetic frequencies, part of the field's energy could be released into the surface of the core if the right materials are present or if the electrical field stress melts and destabilizes part of the surface material.  Experiments on Earth with magnetic fields may show us the possibility of such a partial magnetic/electrical field collapse, but currently no one is looking for this so we have no practical experimental evidence to support this idea.  It is, at best, a very early hypothesis of what the true cause of Novas is.  I am certain it has to do with the magnetic/electrical field and/or the surface/subsurface layers of the white dwarf.  
    Galaxies also divide into new galaxies giving birth continuously so long as the cosmic ray influx in high enough to continue the growth of new stars and planets within the galaxy.  Galaxy division occurs in one of two ways, either the galactic magnetic field divides to create two new galactic magnetic fields that warp and twist apart or the process is ruled by gravity and the binary fission of the central dark quasar at the conclusion of its active cycle (when it is a quasar) during which time an explosive release of tremendous energies breaks the dark quasar into two parts hurling one out into the plane of the galaxy resulting in distortions in the entire galaxy as it captures billions of stars into its gravitational influence on its way out of the galaxy.  The third potential process is for these smaller dark quasars that are expelled from the parent during the conclusion of its quasar stage to form something akin to a globular cluster which slowly grows and moves away from the parent galaxy to form a new galaxy slowly over time.  In other words, either the process involves the whole galaxy being ripped in two in the first case mostly by magnetic forces, or it involves the slow formation of galaxies from relatively small starting blocks of dark quasars that have been expelled from the parent galaxy.  It is, of course, possible that both processes are at work, though the mechanisms responsible would have to be understood because they would be very powerful and our current understanding of magnetic fields is poor.  Electric universe proponents have suggested mechanisms for galaxy division using electrical as well as magnetic elements, though I have not yet translated these ideas clearly into the New Science to see if they will work with Mark McCutcheon's understanding of electrical and magnetic fields as Mark's ideas eliminate the concepts of the property of charge as we understand them and many of the Electrical Universe concepts rely on charge as part of the explanation of their mechanism.  It is unclear whether very large galactic and larger magnetic fields have the power to move stars and galaxies quickly and whether such a mechanism can truly be conceived.  
    Elliptical and lenticular galaxies may have several dark quasars present in their system possibly with double cores rotating around each other depending on the system.  Spiral galaxies likely only have one core, though if the core divides after a light quasar phase into two or more cores, the system will alter its spiral arm morphology and become either lenticular or elliptical.  Some of the spiral arm mass may in fact be ejected if the light quasar is strong enough.  The rotation of stars in the galaxy will be pushed further from the core during a light quasar cycle due to the cosmic ray pressure emanating from the quasar.   An average quasar puts out 100 times the power of a typical galaxy and larger quasar put out 1000's, 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands or even more depending on how large the central dark quasar is before the cycle.  Cosmic ray pressure in normal galaxies has the same effect over long periods of time but during a light quasar phase this process is accelerated considerably and likely contributes to a galaxy division.  It would be expected that a dark quasar is about .1% - 1% of the mass of the entire galaxy it is the core of while a central galaxy of a particular system (cluster, supercluster, metagalaxy) is about .1% as well.  So far the largest galaxy we have discovered has a bit over 100 trillion stars which means it is the core galaxy for about a million major galaxies.  Core galaxies for the smallest metagalaxy would be about 10,000 times the size.
    A dark quasar, if expelled from a major galaxy, can begin dividing again at a relatively rapid pace creating numerous smaller dark quasars and stars/white dwarf cores that themselves can divide to greatly expand the number of stars in a new galaxy.  This process shrinks the central quasar at first, but the galactic magnetic field expands the central quasar will eventually begin to gain mass and energy again.  This process occurs due partially to magnetic evaporation and magnetic field expansion once a dark quasar and a small number of companion stars is expelled from a major galaxy.  The amount of cosmic ray bombardment lowers the further a system like this is from a major galaxy, and as the cosmic ray bombardment pressure lowers, the magnetic field of the central system expands to compensate resulting in lowered core pressure and increased fission rate creating new systems.  Each major fission is proceeded by a light quasar phase (smaller than in major galaxies) OR simply by a large scale emission as in seyfert, starburst, and radio galaxies OR a major central large scale supernova type event.
    Large scale systems shrink when they are in an area that does not have sufficient cosmic ray bombardment.  Galaxies grow and then shrink under certain conditions as do the larger systems of galaxies that scale upwards in size infinitely.  All systems thus are born and die and are then reincarnated in some form or another somewhere else in the cosmos (through the system of reincarnation).  All systems must eventually enter an energy void that is too large for them to cross and be consumed by the lack of energy.  Either this or they collide and merge with another system eventually (which also must either dissipate in a void or be absorbed).  Using a galaxy as an analogy we can see that a galaxy either will merge or eventually dissipate  in a large void.  Shrinking occurs primarily through magnetic evaporation followed likely by core explosion.  Magnetic field evaporation occurs in the opposite manner of magnetic field expansion and core matter deposition through magnetic field deposition of matter and energy in the core.  Magnetic field evaporation takes matter from the core and reinserts it into the magnetic field.  The magnetic field of a system begins expanding when it is no longer under magnetic stress from cosmic/solar ray bombardment or other magnetic fields pressure.  This expansion begins to draw matter out of the core and into the magnetic field.  The magnetic field will also glow more as it expands from the inner transfer of matter into it (the same way as it would grow from the outer transfer of matter/energy/motion into it).  Inner energy will be generated in this manner at the expense of matter in the core through the magnetic field transferring energy and matter into itself from the core.  Many sections of the core are radioactive which magnetic and gravitational pressure keep in check.  The core has inherent electrical currents that feed the magnetic field as well.  During an evaporation process the magnetic field pressure decreases as the magnetic field expands without sufficient cosmic ray pressure to keep it at the same inner magnetic field pressure.  Because of this the stability of certain areas of the core is compromised and it begins releasing energy by increased radioactive decay.  This decay increases the amount of energy in the core electrical currents which increases the magnetic field strength.  Under expansion and stable conditions of these systems, this process is suppressed by the increasing magnetic field strength from cosmic/solar ray bombardment primarily.  In system evaporation conditions, the process of magnetic field growth is fueled from within rather than from without.  At some point the core can become unstable due to the loss of mass and pressure from this process.  The core can explode at some point during an evaporation process if the pressure drops sufficiently from mass loss and magnetic field dissipation through magnetic field expansion without cosmic/solar ray pressure.  The energy and matter of a evaporation process returns matter and energy to the cosmos in the same way that the expansion/growth process of magnetic fields and cores use up energy from the cosmos.
    Interestingly in the aftermath of a supernova/nova type explosion of the entire magnetic field in a stable or expanding planetary/stellar/quasar system, new water and air phases of system development are caused largely by decay processes in the very outer layers of the core.  These layers decay to yield new lighter elements through radioactive decay processes.  Magnetic field catalyzation likely contributes significantly to this process as magnetic or electrical fields can (see below) cause fission in elements under certain conditions.  The denser matter now converted to lighter elements becomes the new ocean and atmospheric shells in these systems as they are working their way back up to larger magnetic fields (because a field reverts to its lowest levels in the aftermath of a magnetic/electrical field overload such as a supernova/nova) in their late gas giant and stellar phases of development.  Much of the external magnetic field is amplified by the large liquid outer cores or ionized atmospheres of gas giants and stellar envelopes.  The size and density of the core is what determines the maximum stable magnetic field a planet/star/quasar can maintain before undergoing a core overload and returning back down to its lowest stable configuration as a rocky planet/white dwarf/dark quasar at its smallest extent.    The long term cores expand in size forever unless absorbed by another system in collision or enter a void so large that the core itself evaporates totally.  
    Small objects such as iron asteroids with a magnetic field would also undergo growth as well under the very same process that expands the size of planets and stars.  Under the right conditions iron is replicated at the core of such asteroids or is converted to silicon and other elements.  This is all done through magnetic and electrical field catalyses.  Using the same process on Earth we could use magnetic field bombardment (with particle accelerators) or compression (with other magnetic fields) to alchemically convert elements into other elements once we have the science using both the magnetic fields and the electrical fields they influence.
    Under the majority of conditions a stable non-growth phase takes up the majority of the lifecycle of any particular cosmic field.  This stable condition can be punctuated by periods of growth or shrinkage, but the entire system is overall at or close to 0 in terms of growth during a particular cycle which most likely is due to a orbit around a central system which is elliptical in nature.  A central system will provide most of the energy for a smaller system under these conditions and the orbit determines a great deal of how much energy the smaller system receives.  Systems that enter voids if thrown out of their orbits will typically evaporate.  A system in evaporation actually exhibits large numbers of incredible explosions as hyper dense cores in planets, stars, and dark quasars release energy when "gravitational" or magnetic field pressure is reduced.  If the pressure lowers sufficiently, the entire core can explode totally.  As such the energy is released back into the cosmos to be recycled into other systems.  

    Energy and Matter Creation

    Additional energy and matter are always available in the cosmos.  The cosmos's energy and matter are always increasing in amount.  Two potential mechanisms exist for this process.  The first is the creation of matter from the etheric, astral, mental and higher planes due to the fact that the physical is capable of continually impressing these higher realms with secondary vibrations that can be used to generate additional matter.  This is through the mechanism of the etheric which is the non-physical plane in which the physical plane is embedded.  As physical matter expands in the physical, it also compresses the first level of the etheric plane, the physical etheric.  This compression is in the form of a wake and a vibration in the etheric. (The etheric wake/vibration is the true object, and the physical is only the copy.)  The etheric energy created is in the form of a vibration that can then be utilized above and beyond the expanding physical vibration of the quantum electron itself.  This is done somehow through higher level vibrations in the higher planes (beyond the etheric) so that thought becomes reality over time.  What this means is that very same secondary vibration in the etheric can be used to create another quantum electron somewhere in the physical cosmos through a mental process because the energy of the quantum electron's expansion is stored secondarily in the etheric.  The 2nd potential mechanism is the paradox of infinite systems whereby a larger system can always be found in an infinite series to donate energy and matter to a smaller system by which I mean that no matter how large a system we can be conceive there can always be found in our imaginations (and in the physical reality) a larger system to trickle down energy and matter to the smaller system.  Because it is an infinite series, we never have to find the largest system, because we never can.  Personally I prefer the 1st mechanism as my explanation, though it is certainly not fully developed at this point.  
    Similarly as matter can be added to the cosmos, sometimes it can be subtracted.  The etheric properties of etheric fields allows for them to reabsorb quantum electrons under certain conditions.  These conditions are determined within the etheric field but likely are part of the grand design of higher planes and their fields.  If such a system does absorb matter temporarily, then any matter passing through it would vanish until it is released again by the field.  This is most likely done on very large scale systems at the end of their operational lifecycle.  Such a cycle would be akin to the Hindu concept of the Days and Nights of Brahma whereby the very large scale cosmic field we are a part of goes through cycles of activity and then total inactivity as in a night asleep.  Such a process would regulate large scale structures in the cosmos.  Without any further knowledge concerning the higher planes it would be very difficult to replicate this, though some of the more extraordinary claims of occult powers may be manifestations of this principle on a very small scale.  More research needs to be done.
    Cosmic fields of sufficiently large size (at least Metagalaxies but more likely Domains) would be able to have a higher expansion rate than other system near them.  A core Domain in a large constellation of Domains would have a good deal higher rate of expansion than other Domains further out in the system.  The core system is usually the one with the highest rate of overall expansion.  This means the properties of stars and planets in that system would be of a different type than this one such that chemical elements and the laws of physics (speed of light, gravity) of this system would be different in that system.  The reason this is done is that core systems must have a higher power to manifest a higher degree of expression.  The higher the expansion rate of the quantum electron in any one system, the more varied the chemical elements of a particular cosmic field's periodic table.  These systems would have a higher power expression as well determined by their etheric density which modulates the expansion rate of the physical quantum electron.  Stars and planets would be denser, larger, and further away from each other to account for the increased gravity and increased energy output of stars in these cosmic fields.  The larger the number of Domains in the system, the larger and more powerful the core Domain, and there literally is no limit to the size of the whole system.  In order to keep the orbits of the systems with slower expansion stable, they would have to be surrounded by an expanding etheric shell of equal expansion rate to the core system in which they would be imbedded.  The science of this concept is not well developed, but again it could have implications regarding short scale occult powers based on etheric manipulation.  

Cosmogenesis and the New Biology

Intelligent Evolution - Physical Evolution, Spiritual Evolution,  and Intelligent Design - A New Approach


Dialogue Concerning Cosmogenesis and the Future of Science and Knowledge

New Technological Concepts Developed from Cosmogenesis and Quantum Expansion Theory

The New Alchemy

    The same process of electrical and magnetic field alteration of matter in stars and planets under sufficient magnetic field stress can be applied here on Earth.  It is likely that matter can be copied or transformed under the right magnetic and electrical field stress.  Magnetic field and electrical field streams are composed of the same Quantum Electrons as all matter.  If we have sufficient quantum electrons in a group we have a proton, if we have a great deal more we end up with an atom.  Quantum Electrons in a magnetic field sheet are same as Quantum Electrons in a electric current which are the same as the ones in atoms.  This means that if we are able to condense a sheet or current into a sphere of a proton and successfully eject it from the electrical/magnetic field, we have manufactured a proton from an electrical or magnetic field.  
    (Rework) In a similar manner could we potentially form an atom or even molecule from a electro-magnetic mold at the proper frequency/current/voltage (inner magnetic or electrical field)  by molding the shape of an atom (using the atom) against the background of the current/magnetic field and cutting out exact shape in the perfect conditions (quantum electron for quantum electron)  We could even add matter to atoms to change them from one type to another.
    Thus, under the right conditions, and with sufficient energy, we could indeed convert lead to gold if we understand the new science completely.  We could also make more of any elemental substance we required simply by finding the magnetic field stress combined with a proper electrical current of the right voltage and amperage to remove quantum electrons from the electrical or magnetic stream and store it in the elemental crystal lattice.  This would obviously take a great deal of energy and would likely be very destructive in terms of the amount of energy released when a stream of Quantum Electrons going the speed of light is brought to an abrupt halt inside a crystal lattice.  It is likely this process will be very slow in growing elements in any appreciable amounts (at first at least), but it could very likely be used to prove certain theories concerning the development of stellar cores.  This process, however, could be made to work if there is a way to recycle at least some of the energy released into the crystal lattice when the stream condenses out of it.  If we could reliably use this approach to create any element, we would have no need to mine asteroids or dig further into the Earth in search of fresh metals.  Our current supplies of many metals are estimated to begin running out in just 30 years.  Finding a easy solution to this shortage may simply be a matter of building sufficient renewable energy resources and build the necessary machinery to replicate any element that we may require.  Do we have the science and the models yet?  No, but in the next 20 years as computer science advances and new scientists come forward to work on this problems, this solution to our material shortage may become viable.  It is certainly worth a look into.

Starship Propulsion Mechanisms

    According to our current theories it is impossible to go faster than light.  According to both Quantum Expansion Theory and the derived science contained in Cosmogenesis, faster than light travel is very much possible.  Several new ideas concerning potential energy storage technologies emerge within the context of the new science.  
    Our current technologies are limited to the periodic table as we know it as well as electro-magnetism as we know it.  The highest densities obtainable according to our current ideas is only a little more than what is available in the Earth's crust.  Under higher pressure, both electromagnetic and gravitic (see diagram) elements such as Uranium can become stable, and elements higher in the periodic table also enter into the realm of stability.  According to Cosmogenesis, the highest possible density will be neutron star matter level density under normal conditions, though higher levels will be possible.  This means that elements should exist with larger and larger nucleuses up to near neutron star density.  It also means that matter can be compressed to much higher densities under sufficient pressure.  It is this hyper dense matter that exists at the core of stars and planets that can be manufactured in a laboratory under the proper conditions and could allow us to power starships that could reach other stars relatively quickly.
    Just as a star or planet can manufacture new elemental matter and condense matter in its core through electrical and magnetic activity under cosmic ray bombardment pressure, so too can such a miniature scale system be used to recreate this process in a laboratory.  The same processes that work in planets and stars can work to create ultra dense matter here on Earth using either particle accelerators to bombard magnetic fields, electrical currents, or magnetic field pressure.  All this is required is a complete model of the proposed electro-magnetic alterations involved and an equipped lab to do the work.  
    Ultra dense matter, if it is in metallic form, will serve as sort of a ultra fission material that could be used in starships as a reactor similar to a radioscopic thermoelectric generator, but much, much more powerful.  Another possibility is that the reaction could be controlled such as a star or planets so that in a controlled environment where the magnetic field of the Reactor Core is kept stable by it being embedded in a much larger expanded electromagnetic field created by a plasma fluid, then by modulating the magnetic field power could be drawn from the electrical field in the Reactor Core itself.  This would be in a similar manner to the Cosmogenesis stellar model which shows  in the event cosmic ray bombardment lowers, stellar magnetic fields expand and begin drawing energy from the electrical fields in the core of the Star, which in turn draws matter out of the core which emits energy mostly through radioactive decay.  Such elemental matter in a Reactor Core would have to be kept stable with continual electrical and magnetic field pressure to prevent it from exploding with a much, much greater force than an atomic bomb.  Also when modulating the core, it would be very important to know exactly how much modulation of the larger plasma matrix field would be safe to prevent a Reactor Core overload.  After all, we would be playing with the same force that is likely responsible for some Nova and Supernova somewhere in the Cosmos.  As such the science for developing this technology will have to wait until we can safely contain it and until we have a sufficiently great clean energy resource for generating the power to create this system.  I have called the hypothetical engine system derived from this technology a Magnetically Stabilized Micro Stellar Core Fission Reactor Engine (MSMSCFRE).
    For a safer, more stable means to power propulsion, hyper dense crystals of ordinary substances made of several atoms, such as quartz, which be designed and created in a lab that would be sufficiently dense that it could be used to store light or perhaps electrical energy in its hyper dense lattice.  The crystal would then be etched as it is created as a pathway to release this energy (if it is in the form of light) slowly from the core.  The long term goal of such a project would be to create crystals such as this that would weight 100's or 1000's of times the normal density that could hold and contain additional energy in a small volume.  Because these crystals would not be explosive in the same way that a very heavy element would be, they would be relatively safe to outside a stabilizing magnetic and/or electrical field.  The hypothetical engine system designed from this type of reactor would be called a Hyper Dense Light Storage Crystal Reactor Engine (HDLSCRE) or a Hyper Dense Crystal Capacitor Reactor Engine (HDCCRE) if electricity is stored instead of light.  


Mass of Proton is 1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg
Mass of true Electron is approximately 7.3622 X 10-51 Kg.
Number of Quantum Electrons per Proton is approximately 2.2719 X 10 23.
Einstein's Equation of Special Relativity - E=Mc2
Plank's Equation - E=hυ
The Coulomb = 6.242×1018 particles
The New Coulomb - Examine the oil drop experiment, again

Extra Notes for Future Consideration
When looking at Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of galaxies, star clusters, local stars, etc.  it is necessary in light of the new theory to reinterpret what we are seeing.  A new concept to explain why stars appear to branch off at different points depending on where they are in the galaxy in the concept of star families.  These are stars with a similar birthing parent who has created cores of a similar size which explains why when we look at the different star groups throughout the universe we that often there is a turn in the main sequence (which current astrophysics states indicates the age of the star cluster through the current fission model of stellar evolution.)  Now looking at say a open or globular cluster's Hertzsprung-Russell diagram we see that there is a group of stars that have a similar ancestry and come likely from a singular parent star at some point in their development.  This explains the discrepancy between clusters and each other and the general stellar population of the galaxy.  
Magnetic Stars evolve along the main sequence until there cores can no longer handle the magnetic field pressure of the cosmic ray bombardment of their external field and then they balloon into subgiant/giants/supergiants.  The more mass in their cores, the further along the main sequence they can evolve(grow) until they are forced to turn off due to the high magnetic field pressure.