Survival: The Ultimate Mission. Robert M.D. Skaf

the dark matter. Furthermore, by being infinitely so tiny, one could conclude that regardless of how finite the matter can get, it would never reach the point of finite annihilation. Even Einstein had trouble dealing with infinity. According to him the universe is finite. This may be correct when one is referring to the universe we know, however, this is not the case when one refers to the entire universe. Actually, the fact that Einstein was able to demonstrate that our universe is finite should provide the proof that the greater universe that surrounds it does exist and must be boundless - at least according to our analysis. Recently, astrophysicists discovered that our universe shows signs of cosmic bruising and cosmic bubbles which can only be connected to forces beyond our universe. This is happening now, in the future, another advanced civilization may be able to understand infinity better, until then, we are better of focusing on surviving beyond our planet. Space is not as simple as it appears to be, it is elastic, murky and enormously complex. Pockets of it could be exclusively made of proteins living of other proteins. On earth we are aware of bacteria that feed on poisonous metals such as arsenic, who is to say that an entire pocket of the universe is not made of bacteria or other microorganisms. All these questions lead us to wonder how our universe was shaped before the formation of stars and galaxies. Scientists may have a few theories on how atoms were formed, yet they still have no clue where the dark matter came from or whether it could be considered the primary matter which happened to occupy the remaining 96% of space. Although scientists have failed to tackle this possibility, they all happen to share the fundamental principle which stipulates that nothing can be created from the void. Anyone who believes in science ought to support this theory. Based on this scientific law, one is able to deduce that in essence the universe we live in and possibly others have been around forever. The shape, the fabrics and the structure of a universe may change, but its mass always stays constant. The same can be said about the dark matter, any matter or antimatter. Stars may run out of fuel and die off; constellation may be gobbled up by galaxies; the whole known universe may one day collapse into a giant ball of fire similar in shape to the universe described in the so called big bang theory; however, the total mass of the element itself whether made of matter, antimatter or anything else will always be there. Regardless of what shape the universe may appear or reappear in---never mind how often atoms may transmute---it makes no difference how many times they may fuse or split --- even if the infinite universe happens to contain an infinite numbers of sub-particles--- nothing is ever destroyed. This may be difficult to fathom, but once a single tiny atom can be completely wiped out of existence, the logical conclusion would be that the whole universe can be annihilated by the same force that is capable of completely wiping out a single atom. What is meant by that is to render something into an absolute nothingness and void. Supporters of the theory of quantum mechanics will be pleased to realize that the universe or universes could only exist as clusters of tiny waves. After all, though it may be difficult to prove, only by being structured as a wave could the matter avoid total collapse. Only as a wave could atoms fuse and split in such huge numbers. Stars, planets and any celestial object are huge waves, for only as waves could they avoid a total collapse. In fact, our universe could not exist unless it happens to be formed by a huge collection of clusters of waves. One may wonder how metal, soil and even liquid could be considered a cluster of waves. The answer is simple: the theory of quantum mechanics provides that all elements are formed from waves, as these waves transmute their density changes but in essence they remain waves. They all float like waves in zero gravity. Fine dust is a good example of what we are talking about. Regardless of the theory, when it comes to the final product, we will be looking at waves. Strings, membranes or whatever the primary element happened to be, it must be infinitely fine, and it cannot allow for any total fusion. In that sense, the entire physical world will always be made of waves.

      This interaction - among dark matters, particles, mass-less particles, subatomic particles and non-particles which has been going on ever since any creation has existed and ought to go on forever - seems to be triggered by a mysterious compelling force which main purpose is to keep everything in motion. Amazingly enough, it appears as if this is the only way for the mass to stay in existence. Think for a moment that you were a tiny particle. Now, unless you go through some changes here and then, how could one tell that you are different from a void. More importantly, how can you see yourself as a matter and not as nothingness? In other words, stillness and existence do not mix. The fact that our universe is not shaped as a single sphere is a proof that particle and non-particle matter may interact but never solidify. One may also use this observation to explain why there is no void. Let me elaborate: for the void to exist a large number of particles and non-particles must either be destroyed or be solidified in one ball. But we have already demonstrated that neither situation exists.

      The time it takes to go through a change is irrelevant to how important it is to change and reinvent you as an element. In our universe there is no such thing as constant, stable, stagnant or invariable. Everything that happens to occupy any space in it must continually change. A fusion may give birth to new particles or new stars but the mass of the universe is always the same. Nothing can be added; nothing can be taken away. Not a single tiny particle, quark, membrane, string, wimp, electron, photon…or anything else. (In my opinion, scientists will never be able to find the primary matter. As stated earlier, in theory, one can go on splitting things forever. How can we get there if we do not even have the technology to split the atom beyond the elementary process? An Atom- Collider may provide some clues; however, one would be safe to bet that different and new endless sub-particles are going to be randomly formed with every collision). Now, going back to our subject, the only way a particle or an atom can be written off is if it is lost into a different zone that might be called the empty zone or the void. However, as long as our universe exists, this imaginable zone cannot be there. This theory is based on this simple fact. If the void zone happens to be there for real, it would be infinitely bigger than our universe. Theoretically, this zone should be of an infinite size. Despite the fact that every tiny particle in our universe is connected in one way or another to all others and despite the fact that our universe measures billions of light years in diameter, the presence of a void zone would render it null and void, simply because only in such a limitless zone would our universe come apart and possibly face total fragmentation. Only in this environment would the element disappear - regardless of what is composed of. Although it may not be destroyed, completely isolated, it becomes constant and therefore dead. Without interacting with other particles, the matter cannot transform itself. Without the presence of other active elements, an isolated atom in a huge void becomes nothing.

      This observation leads us to wonder what is beyond our universe. The only thing we are sure of is whatever is there is not a void. Again, as long as a cohesive universe such as ours remains in existence, one can easily argue that the space enveloping this universe cannot be a void. Could there be another universe and if this is the case could our universe be a part of an infinite universe so huge that present technology is not able to detect? The other question is why are we assuming that a faraway universe must look like ours? Truth is we know very little about the mass that forms our own universe let alone trying to understand the ones that lie beyond. Despite this fact, many scientists have been trying to theorize that our universe is destined for annihilation. They reason that as stars and galaxies burn themselves into oblivion, our universe would follow. In my opinion, this is not going to happen. Not when there has been evidence of new galaxies continually forming in a manner much similar to the way they disappear. This observation leads us to question what the science community expects us to take for granted with regard to the big bag. I for one disagree with this theory. Yes there may have been a big bang that resulted in the formation of several galaxies but we should not assume that this big bang was responsible for the creation of the entire universe. Let’s not forget that whoever came up with this theory, did not realize how huge our universe was. Modern astronomers believe that our universe is made up of over one hundred billion galaxies, whereas at the time the big bang theory was introduced, astronomers of the day knew only of the existence of few galaxies. Still, advocates of the big bang theory rely heavily on the expansion theory. They reason that our universe is still expanding as a result of this huge cosmic explosion that occurred some 15 billion years ago (close to sixty billion if you go by a new theory than adds the four directions where we can observe dying stars) and resulted in the creation of our universe. Firstly, the big bang theory assumes that the physical universe was at a standstill until there was a huge explosion. As we have seen