It has indeed been a while since I've submitted journal entry, so it is apt to submit something new, for I had given the pretention of submitting interesting journals soon after the previous ones, yet had not. However, in deliberation I've been considering some ideas, and decided that it may be of others interest in sharing them, in hope that they shall inspire ideas further. The reason for having submitted no journal entries in over a year is due mainly to a lack of inspiration to do so.
So what is the idea? Well, the idea I have been considering is that of a physical cosmology, that is, a theorem for the structure of nature in, at least, its macrocosmic scale [the universe]. Here is a loose summary of it:
'The essential shape of the entirety is, unoriginally enough, spherical in form. However, its distribution is not to be thought of as merely a ball of light, but a distribution of energy states. At the top of the sphere there is that which is of a higher energy state, immense light, the subatomic in most unbounded of forms, such as supermassive suns and the like, though highly compacted if imagined from afar. From the lower there is the lowest of energy states, and as an explanation of dark matter, that which is of such a low energy state that it acts as a crystallisation of higher energy states; it holds what is termed as 'energy' by its mass, but it inhibits the actual energy. It is able to interact with the higher energy states which act upon it, plasmoid in appearance and thus flowing, over time this creates dense arms of light enclosed by light and such, like nebulae ensorcelled in dark matter. The explanation for the spiral shapes, which gives credence to the spherical nature of the universe, is that each state interacts which each other across the gradient of light at the designated upper sphere and dark at the designated lower sphere, or high to crystallised [inert/solidified] energy. Each interaction is impelled to flow back down towards its point on the sphere, so that each eventually manifest in spiral motions to our apparent frame of reference.'
But our current viewpoint in this cosmology would make us in an intermediate state, and the universe so far as viewed, as infinitely huge as it seems, is nothing much. Rather it is actually an intermediate between both light and dark interacting. But both flow back towards their absolutes, dark below and light above as a simplification of its direction. These extreme ranges are however out of our human sights and observation, except by implication. So the light may be impelled towards flowing back, even after delving far into the dark, and so to the dark may flow back to itself.
What is to be implied by this if we consider it a postulate? It would imply that light may be impelled (seemingly by gravitation or otherwise) towards a locale beyond our cosmic horizon of observation, and for the darkness an infinity beyond too. These two things, interestingly enough, correlate well with actual observation so far as I can tell. For the former I had coincidentally come across a well correlating observaton from this article: [link]
, where it is said that "an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters [has been identified]. The [suggested] cause [...] is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe". This seems very much like the attraction that light and dark would have towards themselves. The article also mentions that standard models would predict such motions to decrease given the distance, however the theorem provided suggests otherwise indeed, contradicting the notion that "all large-scale motion should show no preferred direction". Entropy too would be a general motion ordained by the ever recursive motions of light and dark as they leap forth unto themselves. Whichever way these motions primarily move from our point of reference may be hard to observe however, as it is likely that we be in an intermediate state between the two absolutes. With a large scale observation of these implied attractions beyond our cosmic horizon of observation itself we may yet discover a trend between the motions, like that of two entropical forces in seemingly opposing directions, rather than whichever way.
One very obvious concern arises with this vision of the cosmology however; why do not either light and dark remain unto themselves? Why do they move when they could perfectly balance like two halves in an eternally static state? There are a few ways one could resolve this. Firstly, it could be explained away as it is orthodox to do so by suggesting a first cause. A spark amidst the halves would become, springing it into an evident existence by the collaboration of light and dark. In a way it could be suggested that the universe seems not to exist when there is no collaboration and intertwining of the two - it is just as chaos is described in greek mythology as a void of form. However when the two interact, form very obviously becomes apparent through contrast and contradiction. Another apt correlation is that it would be like the necessity of becoming and unbecoming for the acknowledgement of existence. Becoming would be like the light, unbecoming the dark, and both flowing back unto themselves, but without the collaboration, there would be no being [intermediate state], so the two would literally be falling forever without form. The other sensible explanation would be that the interaction is eternal without beginning, and thus no spark needed. Here, evidently, it would be natural for both states not only flow unto themselves, but also flow between themselves, though still being impelled to ultimately come back to themselves before flowing outward once more. Of course this would occur also by an original sparking or volition of it, at least like a resonating effect of it flowing like plasma outwards before falling back, though if it were eternal to begin with, the two would have been impelled to interact without volition.
But considering that point inherently unknowable, the actual motions of this cosmology should be quickly explicated on more clearly. Firstly, it would not be unlike plasma, thus on the one hand, the suns with their plasmacity, and on the other hand, 'black holes' (in this cosmology, the crystallisation of energy/the darkness to a great extent) too with their own plasmacity. It can be imagined like water dropped from a cup, forming beads as it falls. Secondly, the spirals as mentioned are caused by the inherent shape of the universe, which was described as spherical, so that as each absolute flows back, they form such elliptical shapes as one would expect from a marble launched across the side of a bowl. It could be seen that such things as galaxies show both the light and dark like spirals, and how does this reconcile the spherical shape of the universe? It would by the fact that in every recursive perspective this collaboration is seen but in our intermediate state. Because in the intermediate state between the absolutes, both light and dark may near equalise in their flowing together - as both become nearer to their absolutes, each takes their dominance in the spiral form, until they become formless. Light on the top and dark on the bottom of the sphere again as the simplification of the direction. One may find it an apt correlation that it so readily evokes the idea of ying and yang. I did draw a diagram, though with no scanner it could not be posted. Why draw a diagram if there is the ying and yang? Because whilst the ying and yang is apt, it does not readily show the extra 'dimension' of the sphere - one can imagine it by what is implied however. It may simply be easier to explain; imagine a ying and yang; add a plus and minus on the respective sides (+light, -dark), and a spiral on each side like one would imagine seeing a galaxy near side on might be like, for the sake of perspective. Imagine the icon to be like a three dimensional sphere. I have termed this the 'Cosmologia Universalis'.
Whilst the explanation here is loose, hopefully it was of interest, perhaps even an inspiration for further thoughts, if you followed it thus far. I may work on it further. Any feedback is of course welcome. Also I am working on a new picture, if any were hoping it so, hah.