In
the Malta Template, rejectivity is of equal
importance in the Universe to
mass/gravity. Just as mass/gravity is a property of every object, so is
rejectivity. Without rejectivity the Universe as we see it today could
not exist. There is no exact equivalent to rejectivity in the Current
Paradigm which consequently has an excess of unresolved
conundrums.
Consider the following:
Rejectivity may not be a part of the Current Paradigm but, under other
names, it has been with us for a long time. It's commonest manifestation is as "antigravity". The notion that
gravitational attraction should be countered by a rejective force can
be traced back to (at least) the philosophers of ancient Greece
although for much of this time it was founded on little more than the
"gut instinct" that for every hand on the left there should be a hand
on the right.
The
need to formally identify antigravity became
more pressing in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as the idea
took hold that the Universe was eternal and infinite. John Mitchell's
proposal of 1783 suggested that gravity, left to its own devices,
would draw everything into a gravity well from which there could be no
escape. This possibility was taken by many to confirm that some
kind of rejective force exists that prevents such a
collapse.
The
need was found in another form with the publication of General
Relativity in 1915. Einstein's equations unequivocally predicted that the
Universe could not help but collapse into itself due to the
gravitypull of its own mass. Einstein was a man of his time and
believed, along with everyone else who mattered, that the Universe was
eternal and infinite. He resolved his dilemma by introducing a
rejective force into his equations which he called the "cosmological
constant".
That the cosmological constant was an artificial
device was obvious. This led some to suppose that a universal
gravitational collapse was inevitable. In turn, this led to the idea
that before the collapse could take place, the Universe must first
expand. Thus was born the Big Bang Theory.
The notion that the
Universe might have a lifecycle with a beginning, middle, and end
didn't move easily into the mainstream. There was a vigorous and
vociferous opposition from those who felt more comfortable with the
status quo. The opponents mostly lined themselves up behind the Steady
State Theory in which the need for a rejective antigravity was
fulfilled by having the Universe continually renew itself from within.
It was not until the 1970s that the Big Bang Theory become the dominant
idea and the immediate need for some form of rejectivity faded away.
Not
that the need faded away completely and in recent years there has been
a major resurgence with the discovery that galaxies are not collapsing
as quickly as the current theories suggest they must. The obvious
answer is that something is preventing the collapse and thus acting
antigravitationally. The favoured notion is that a form of
matter invisible to us is positioned in the outer
reaches of the galaxies and slowing the collapses. (
Chapter 5 - Darkmatter)
The
resurgence was reinforced by the discovery that the expanding
Universe, after many billions of years in which its expansion
rate was decelerating, is now in a phase where the rate of that expansion
is accelerating. This shouldn't happen in a Universe where the gravity
of visible objects has its head. In casting around for a reason as to
why this is happening, one of the favoured notions is, ironically, a
reformed version of Einstein's discarded cosmological constant. (
Chapter 4 - Darkenergy)
That
rejectivity keeps resurfacing in new forms is because the need for
something like it keeps cropping up. That the proposed solutions
keep being supplanted suggests that they are not yet right. The
Rejectivity Law, however, as it is formulated here, is exactly right.
It isn't exactly antigravity. Its manner of working isn't an
opposite of the way that gravity works because its effects are only apparent
at contact and it doesn't work at a distance. Nevertheless, it fulfills
the antigravitational role well enough to resolve (or play a part in
resolving) all the conundrums that made earlier scientists feel the
need for an antigravitational force in the first place.
If
the Rejectivity Law is applied, the Malta Template universe evolves
from Moment Zero into a universe that is exactly the same as the one we
inhabit - and given that there are no known objects in the Universe
that do not obey the Rejectivity Law there can be no justification
for not applying the Law.
In
practice, the Malta Template cannot selfprove without the Law -
and the Current Paradigm would be greatly improved by adopting
it.