Why no talk about the empty focus inherent to Kepler's assertion

that planetary motion about the sun is elliptical? It's no secret

the Sun is but one of two focuses inside the ellipse.

If the Sun's mass is responsible for the motion of its

planetary bodies encircling it, then it follows that there must be

an explanation accounting for the empty focus, and whether or not anything is there at all, or perhaps something like dark matter, energy, flow, or possibly a dark sun.

Four theories jump immediately to mind.

1. Perhaps the two focuses inside an ellipse are not in actuality

restricted to being mere "points", but rather, perhaps those two points are but static instances along an additional ellipse (or circle) which describes the Sun's own path. (Just the next logical step in the progression of the next dimensional order of complexity.)

2. Perhaps the empty focus is the point where a dark sun occupies.

3. Perhaps the empty focus is the ideal spot to place a hidden camera. [Such a monitoring device may have been hidden here by this system's Creator(s), to keep tabs on us, for example.]

4. The most intriguing theory to me, and seemingly less paranoid (yet also more improbable), is this. What if the empty focus were the actual location of a holographic projector device which is responsible for creating the illusion of what we perceive to be our solar system, universe, or even reality? Bear with me while I make the necessary points for these postulations to be considered as being within the realm of possibility.

If you were to fashion an elliptical pool table (for instance) and then identified the two focus points, first placing a pocket (for the pool balls to drop into) at one of the focuses, and then putting a marker (for a pool ball to be placed on) at the other focus, something quite interesting is set up to occur. Place a pool ball on the marked focus point and then shoot it

*in any direction whatsoever*, and it will

*always*bounce off the inner wall of the ellipse and travel

*directly into the pocket where the other focus lies*.

The implications for how this might affect our understanding of our solar system are intriguing to me. Since our Sun is at one of the focuses, that means that all the light which emanates from the Sun, were it to "bounce off the inner walls" of earth's elliptical trajectory, would then be reflected

*directly into the empty focus*(which counterbalances the Sun's position). This observation of course can work both ways (hence my theory of a possible holographic projector at the empty focus instead).

Two things immediately come to mind. The first is that the empty focus might be a perfect place where a cosmic Designer might place a hidden camera. I haven't figured out the mathematics but its possible this spot might remain well hidden from the prying eyes of astronomers, I don't know. The second thing is that the empty focus could be the position of a holographic projector which is responsible for projecting the image of our universe (or solar system) to us. i.e, a sort of artificial machine which projects "the matrix", to coin a contemporary popular term.

These amusing speculations aside, the real concern which first must strike the conspicuous observer, is that arc which describes the progress of history's astronomers' initial observations. It has been said that one may begin drawing a circle at any point, so I will begin with Galileo having theorized about the possible heliocentric nature of our planetary orbits, then move on to Kepler's slight correction of these pathways into an ellipse (by necessity including now two focuses rather than the original single focus of the Sun resting in the direct center of a circle). Hence the most obvious and first order of speculation must be the admission of a (most likely high) probability that Kepler, too, may have been mistaken (albeit further along the path towards the truth). Herein is where we must consider

*the possibility that both Galileo's (circle) theory and Kepler's (ellipse) theory are but the first two relatively crude steps towards our having discovered the true(r) nature of these planetary motions.*

The most likely explanation for the empty focus point in our own solar system, in my opinion, is the first of the four theories described above. The theory which states the empty focus is nothing but a static point along the path of our Sun's own trajectory.

Which brings me to the consideration of a thesis. The objective of the thesis would be to distinguish whether Kepler's ellipse theory is actually correct or if, indeed, he merely succeeded in shading one more dimension of the model which will eventually be completed by a current or future astronomer. Upon considering the possibilities myself, I tend to think there is still much to work out about this model of the motions of our universe's celestial bodies.

To bring this matter into proper perspective, allow me to chart our progress of these models for celestial movement via dimensional analogy. I will ascribe the "1st dimensional step" towards solving this puzzle to

__Galileo__(a point = heliocentric), and the "2nd dimensional step" to

__Kepler__(the two focus points make a line = elliptical); therefore, its a relatively simple matter to plug in the "3rd dimensional step" to

__whomever is credited with having made the discovery__(a 3rd focus whose inclusion would better describe

*cubic space*=

*the next theory*, i.e,

*holographic*).

Astounding speculations! Reminds me of the mathematical analysis of the universe offered by Juan Maldecena, the string theorist at Harvard who conflated information theory and cosmic strings to bring Stephen Hawking around to seeing that information is more fundamental than energy/matter. According to Maldecena's theory, all information is preserved on boundary surfaces -- of black holes ... and thus, on the surface of the universe itself. Billions of light years away, on the two-dimensional boundary surface of the expanding universe, string interactions configure reality and project into the volume of the universe the hologram we take for actuality. Sort of like the holographic reality you describe here.

ReplyDeleteNow we're getting somewhere with our universal speculation, Al.

ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to comment so generously.

You've probably read about Craig Hogan at Fermilab having predicted

the Geo-600 (gravitational wavelet detector in Hanover, Germany) would

pick up a jittery noise from the quantum convulsions of spacetime; if not,

here is the link to that amazing article, for your perusal:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

So it does appear as if black holes and the information from their precursor star encoded on their boundary surface is an integral clue as to the nature of our universe. According to Hogan's explanation of the holographic universe theory, he asks us to imagine the spherical universe's exterior boundary to be covered in planck -length sized squared each containing one bit of information. According to the holographic theory,

the information inside the sphere must equal the info papered on its surface. To account for the differential of surface area, Hogan suggests the bits of information inside our universe must be larger than the bits upon its surface, perhaps on an order of magnitude twice the size of the planck length. He suggests that if we really did live in a holographic universe, we would know by "measuring the blur".

I want to know how the ancients figured this all out themselves without the help of a gravitational wavelet detector. How did this information pass to certain greek philosophers, "hermes trismegistus", and on to philip k. dick (re:VALIS) if there isn't something outside conscientiously communicating with us? Although if we and the universe are one, then it follows that through self-examination we may find the truth, just as things that can be seen, heard, and learned reveal it to us also (re: the state of flux referenced by Heraclitus).