Activity Feed › Forums › New Models › Infinity

Our understanding of infinity is wrong, completely.
The formal definition states, a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. This makes the logic:
0<1<∞
For well over 100 years this is exactly the way everyone has seen infinity. A vast endlessness, and a really really really big number numerically.
We know the universe behaves mathematically. As such, our universe is following the laws of mathematical logic. And as such, anything wrong in mathematical logic isn’t defining reality. I think most people would agree, 1+1=3 is equally as wrong as 1>2. 1+1=2, and 1<2. Do you agree?
The first thing to dissect is numbers. We invented numbers using a base 10 redundant logic. We know our numbering system is logically open ended. There is no last number. We’re only limited by our lifespan and technology in expressing any number. We also know, at least I hope everyone does, any expressed or implied number is finite.
The first thing we need to do is simplify the logic, and 86 all the numbers greater than 1 or less than 0, because all math can be accomplished within the space of 0 and 1. 0 and 1 is the hook to universal math, or reality, because both numbers can directly translate to reality. 0 meaning absolutely nothing, and 1 meaning absolutely everything. Or another way to put it, everything either exists at 1, or doesn’t exist at 0. Motion is either 1, meaning instantaneous, or 0, stopped. Time is either frozen at 1, or instantaneous at 0. Anything more or less is redundant meaningless information that we invented. To understand a problem you have to reduce the number of variables in the problem. Simple basic reasoning.
So where does that put infinity?
0<∞<1
That is a factual statement in logic.
Can you have motion greater than instantaneous, or 1? Of course not. That would imply arriving at your destination before you moved. Can you go slower than stopped, or 0? You would have to move negatively which makes no sense. Stopped is stopped. You’re either moving or you’re not moving. The universe doesn’t do negative any better than it does +2 or +3. We made it up.
The same sort of reasoning applies to time and matter. You can’t exist before you exist, and you can’t exist negatively. Etc etc. It is nonsense logic.
Numbers are a tool to help us understand the universe, but the universe isn’t numbers. That’s not real. You can however find where the base numbers link to the universe so we can study it numerically and mathematically, because the universe behaves mathematically.
So, the highest countable number in the universe is 1. Sure, our numbering system goes on forever, because that’s precisely the way we designed the numbering system. We know it doesn’t logically end. And we also know the first number is every bit as finite as any other number, expressible within our lifetime or not. We created numbers.
Infinity –
Mathematical
A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
Finite –
Having limits or bounds
Mathematics didn’t even have the decency of giving finite a mathematical definition, so it’s just hung out there as a concept.
The conceptual definition of finite applied to this, 0<1<∞, results in infinity being limited by infinity, making infinity finite. It has a limit. And the actual definition of infinity as, “a number” greater than any assignable quantity or countable number, also makes infinity finite by default. Numbers are finite, expressed or implied.
Infinity cannot be greater than itself, limiting infinity to what it can be, logically. The definitions of infinity and finite make infinity conceptually and numerically finite.
Can a quantity be infinite?
No, it can’t, not in this universe.
Just assume for a moment that the universe was infinite in scale. Would that result in an infinite number of stars? Considering there are more planets than stars, and more matter than stars and planets, and stars are made from matter, of course not. Infinity isn’t a catch all for things we can’t understand or see. ∞=∞. That’s logical. ∞>∞ is illogical. You can’t have an infinite number of stars in the universe with a greater number of planets, and an even greater number of things that make up stars and planets. That’s nonsense. Not to mention, stars are always being gobbled up by black holes, and being created in stellar nurseries. The actual number of stars isn’t a fixed quantity over time. It changes over time. Same with planets, and the same thing with matter. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. Quantity is dependent on time. Stop time, and then you would have a finite value of everything. Start time, and you have a changing value of everything. It could be a falling number, or rising number, but it certainly isn’t an infinite number. I’m sorry, but that’s absurd.
Remember, the mathematical definition clearly claims infinity is “A NUMBER”.
It’s simple logic. The definition of infinity stands in error. It is meaningless.
Finite has problems too. It was hung out there as a concept, with no scientific or mathematical definition in the English dictionary. So, what happens when a limit is reached? We infer finite from the concept, but there is no concrete definition to confirm it. Concepts are related to time. Something will reach a limit. Once that limit is reached, it is no longer a concept. It’s just a finite point on a number line. It’s no longer a limit, just a static unchanging value over time. x=x.
Conceptually, I am finite. I get that. But what does that make me right now? I’m not finite yet. My value is changing over time.
Finite and infinite were defined by mathematicians, not scientists. Numbers are an invention of man. What those numbers mean to mathematicians doesn’t necessarily make them applicable to the universe or science. Mathematicians think numbers, science thinks how numbers apply to the universe.
The mathematical definition of infinity is blatantly wrong. I don’t care what Cantor did in math. There cannot be more than one single infinity. Infinity is not a specific value, anymore than finite is a specific value. They define the STATE of numeric VALUES over TIME in the real world. Finite is the opposite of infinite, logically. If the mathematical infinity is defined as, “A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number”, than the mathematical definition of finite would logically have to be defined as, “A number less than any assignable quantity or countable number.” And what sense would that make? Numbers end at 0.
You have to follow logic, always. Yes, 0<∞<1, is every bit as valid as, 1<∞<2. That doesn’t necessesitate two infinities. Remember, we made up 2, and all the other infinities. What that really means is Cantor didn’t understand how infinity applied to the universe, so he didn’t know what infinity was any better than the rest of us poor saps. Infinity was around long before Cantor came along. He tried to incorporate it into mathematics and assign it various numeric values or descriptions in different infinite sets. In no way does that solve our understanding of infinity. Infinity has been one of the greatest mysteries in all of mankind. Does the universe continue forever, or will it come to an end? Did it have a beginning? Do you honestly trust those answers to a human calculator from the late 1800’s with a natural bias towards a steady state infinite universe?
Clearly Cantor was applying the scientific concept of an infinite universe to mathematics, which in those days infinite steady state was the dominant mindset, and they considered infinity a static state, not a dynamic state. A static infinite state is a finite state, contradicting the meaning of infinite. As far as science was concerned in the late 1800’s, the universe never ended. So, Cantor made up a bunch of cardinalities and alpha’s and omega’s and trans infinities and god knows what else, to reconcile the conflict of various non infinite elements floating around an infinite space. They all had to be infinite in their own special way, because the universe was perceived as infinite, but not quite as infinite as the Omega infinity.
———
Cantor’s omega ω is just a name for unlimited counting. When a count of units 1.. stops, we have defined a natural number. Without halt, the endless series of ones this finally would produce is called ω in advance.
n = 1.. :n = 1{n} (natural numbers)
ω = 1.. = 1{ω} (infinity has no bound) (this is flawed)
———
Even this taken directly from a Cantor website tells you the same thing. Counting is time dependent.
“Without halt, the endless series of ones this finally would produce is called ω in advance.”
Without halt, there is no “finally”, so 1{w} can never be produced. It’s a figment of the imagination. There is no last number. Stop the universe, and the entire universe is finite. The universe can only be infinite while it is in motion. That’s infinity. Infinity needs finite to exist, but finite doesn’t necessarily need infinite to exist. The universe could potentially not exist, at 0, or the universe could possibly exist as an empty void at 1. There’s your master set in understanding the universe. It is neither while it is in motion, it is infinite, but that state is limited to what it can be by finite. 1 is the greatest assignable quantity or countable number as far as a universe goes. We have 1 empty motionless universe, or nothing, 0. Scale is irrelevant in an empty universe, because we measure with things that exists within our state of the universe. If all that existed was an empty universe, it becomes a single dimensionless point with the value of 1, only comparable to itself in time and scale. A single end point on a 1dimensional finite line, greater than nothing, giving us the single dimension of space at:
0<∞<1
Space is 1 dimensional. Length, width and height aren’t dimensions, they how we perceive space and matter. They are tools in understanding mass and motion through time. The other 2 dimensions in our universe. We are 3D, just not as we thought we were.
1D spacemass+1D motionenergy+1D time = 3D universe.
I’m sorry, but I’m calling bullshit.
Cantor did not solve infinity. He gave order to bunch of finite sets of manmade numbers, and when he got to the last set, he called it a really big number. The number of all numbers. The mother of all infinite numbers. Cantor was working with manmade finite sets of numbers that can never be infinite. That’s it.
I’m not saying what he did was useless. So, don’t take that the wrong way. But as far as the universe goes, no way. Cantor only lead science astray. Cantor wasn’t a scientist; he was a human calculator. And I’m sure what he did was very useful to other mathematicians. What use, I haven’t a clue. I’m not a mathematician, I’m a realist, or a logician. Things must make logical sense to me. Some of what he did is not entirely wrong either, when applied to the universe, possibly. But I’ll get to that some other time. For now, put Cantor aside. He had no more insight into the true nature of infinity as applied to the universe than a librarian. Not disparaging librarians either, just making a point. He was a numbers guy.
What is infinity?
Infinity = constant of change
finite = absence of change
These are time dependent definitions, because time is real to us.
0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5….
Do you see a pattern?
Infinity is wedged between every set of finite numbers.
Infinity can only exist within a set of finite numbers, and as I mentioned earlier, we only need to worry about the base set of 0 and 1 when understanding the universe, because we made up everything else and we know it’s just simple redundant logic. Infinity is always greater than the lowest value, and less than the highest value in a set. Our numbering system can be described as infinite, but it has nothing to do with the size of it, because it is limitless, but infinity will always be limited by the last finite value one expresses. Infinity is less than the greater finite value in the continuous numbering set we created.
Our numbering system was invented for commerce, not understanding the universe. Science didn’t even exist when numbers were invented. Everything greater than 1 and less than 0 is a distraction, if you want to understand the fundamentals of the universe. I’m not trying to build a nuclear reactor; I’m trying to understand the universe fundamentally with logic, because neither finite nor infinity are calculable. They describe a potential state of the universe.
You have to simplify the logic.
Yes, the universe is infinite, but it is also limited at any given moment in time, by volume and the quantity of stuff floating around in it. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity, or an infinite number of anything. Change is the constant. It’s what we observe.
Look at this way. At the very moment of conception, my value could be defined with the finite value of 1. I exist. As I journey through life my value is changing over time, counting down more or less, so I am infinite. When I reach the end of my life and pass, my value reaches the finite value of 0. I no longer exist. Conceptually I am a finite being. Conceptually, everything in the universe is finite. However, until those limits are reached, we are all bound to the constant of change, and we’re all infinite.
Will the universe last forever? That’s a different question entirely. And one we do not have an answer for yet. For now, our universe is infinite, but only because it is immersed in the constant of change. That implies nothing about its longevity or how big it is or how many things are in it. Nothing in the universe lasts forever, so as far as we’re concerned, we, and everything we observe within the universe, is conceptually finite. The universe is still infinite though, it just doesn’t mean what we thought it meant.
Our universe is not endless in scale at any given moment in time. It logically and mathematically has a lower limit of 0, and an upper limit of 1. That’s what the logic tells us. Infinity is not about the size of the number, it’s about what a number is doing over time. Finite is also nonspecific numerically. It also describes what a number is doing over time. Expressed numbers themselves are always finite. That’s what they are. That’s how we designed them.
Does anyone have a better explanation than I’ve laid out here?
The problem isn’t whether I am right or wrong here, the problem is, whether I am right or wrong requires human consensus. For now, I am a consensus of 1, maybe 2.
Infinity cannot be solved mathematically by human beings. It can only be understood logically by human beings. Infinity and finite are incalculable terms to describe numbers. We can’t prove 0 any better than we can prove 1 or ∞ when applied to the total universe. We can only follow logic.
Do you agree with me?

David, I saw where you replied to me about John Erik, and now your post is gone. Can’t find anything on infinitesimals by him. Not sure what infinitesimal even means. That’s not a unit of measure. I did see where he was heavy into aether, but not sure what any of that could possibly have to do with what I wrote about. I’m referring to infinity as a state of change, not size. We measure things in finite terms mathematically. Size doesn’t have anything to do with infinity, big or little.
 This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by Andy.

So, it looks like I’m chatting with myself at the moment, but I wanted to get this thought down.
I have more proof that the mathematical definition is wrong, and that infinity is seriously misunderstood. Cantor was wrong. And respectfully, anyone that believes 0<1<∞, is wrong. There’s no polite way to say it. Maybe misguided?
If you take this set, 0<∞a<1, and claim ∞a are parts of the whole, and then take this set, 1<∞b<2, and claim ∞b are the parts of the whole, ∞a=∞b. There can’t logically be more variables between (0,1) or (1,2). It’s just invented redundant logic. The only difference between them is the magnitude of those parts, which is a .10 versus a 1.10 respectively. They are 11x bigger in the second set. And the only reason they are 11 times bigger is because they were derived from an arbitrary base 10 numbering system we invented. We invented it based on the digits of our hands so we could perform basic math with our hands for trade and commerce, which we were already doing way back when. We’re treating the universe mathematically like it’s an accounting problem.
There is NO relevance to counting, quantity, or scale, in relationship to infinity. If we multiply either end number by .5, we end up with two parts in each set that are 1/2 the magnitude of the greatest number in the set. The parts can never be greater than whole from which they were derived.
This
0<1<∞
Makes no sense. Parts are derived from a finite whole in the real world, unlike money where we just print more. You can’t just arbitrarily invent the number 2, and then claim there are an infinite number of things between or beyond 0 and 2. Parts are derived from wholes, which would make infinity derived from 1 in the above logic, which makes the parts greater than the whole in magnitude.
It is false logic.
There is a finite number of possible parts between 0 and 1 at any given finite moment in time, because the parts define the whole. Under the conditions of infinite time (constant of change), there is an infinite number of parts, because the quantity is in a constant state of change. Claiming there is a greater number beyond 1 is an arbitrary assumption in logic. And then claiming it is infinite is based on a belief, not reason or logic.
I’ve had 3 people agree with my interpretation so far, but I really haven’t taken it out for spin in the swamp too many times. I was told it would confuse people. Against their better judgement, which is probably a mistake on my part, I cannot support adding another term to science to appease potential confusion. Everyone is already confused. The definition and our understanding of infinity is wrong. It is not “a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.” Infinity is not a specific numeric value real or imagined, and it can never be greater than the whole from which is was derived.
0<∞<1 That’s the universe.
Beyond our universe lies a motionless state of space. It becomes part of our universe when we expand into it, converting to mass once it starts moving. We experience mass, not space. Space is 1 dimensional, with a built in derivative dimension of time. v=0, space=1, time=1. Motionless space represent a dimensionless point mathematically. An end point, with a finite value of 1. Nothing is greater than 1 in the universe. It is the greatest countable number as far as the universe is concerned. Anything greater is an invention of man.
Our universe is a wave.
That is what the logic tells us. Whether this wave will expand forever is not known by me, I just know it is what the universe is. I will say, based on Newtons 1st law of motion, it probably will continue expanding forever, because there is nothing to prevent its motion. The universe itself appears to be a constant in my reasoning, because it represents the constant of change. A body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
I call this the Joan Wave Theory. It’s a theory derived from logic and deductive reasoning, not mathematics.
We have dimension wrong too. Our universe is built on 1D space+1D motion+1D time=3D universe. Motion is a reciprocal term of energy. Space acquires energy from its motion and converts to tangible mass that we can experience. e=mc^2. Motion comes in two flavors, accelerating mass, and decelerating mass, giving us two equal and opposite flavors of energy. Space is decelerating motion in what we call space. Space that we traverse is mass in a decelerating condition. Matter is in an accelerating state of mass. There are no dimensions of length width and height. Those are measuring tools derived from motion and time that allows us to determine the scale or dimension of mass. Motion allow us to experience mass physically, and time allows is perceive mass perceptually. @v=1, m=0, t=0. @v=0, m=1, t=1. That describes the inner and outer limits of the universe respectively. Matter is created from the outer perimeter, where you have a high mass, low energy, low entropy state. It contracts and accelerates inward. Once it reaches the inner limit, where v=1, s=0, t=0, it converts to the space we traverse. It flips or inverts, and then decelerates back out to the perimeter as it expands. Motion starts on 0 and increases to the maximum at 1, and then decreases back to 0. Mass is space, and mass is matter. Energy is the motion of both. Equal and opposites.
That’s what the logic is telling us. It’s the only thing that makes logical sense.

Can we not edit these posts?
I made a slight error. Not all that important, however, I left this out unintentionally. Those who agreed with my interpretation of infinity suggested I create another term, rather than try to correct the definition of infinity, because it would confuse people.

All motion occurs 3 dimensionally, because it impacts time mass motion simultaneously. And why wouldn’t it be? This is exactly what we observe in nature. The direction of motion is 1 dimensional, because it occurs in space, which is 1dimensional. Space is the only physical ingredient in our make up, and the only thing that can move. Energy/motion and time aren’t tangibles things you can hold in your hand. They are what space is doing. The orientation of space is inward and outward. When matter travels inward it is in a contracting state. That gives space energy density. When matter travels outward it is in an expanding state. It loses energy density because it gains mass. The motion that we observe reduces the natural inward acceleration. We are slowing our motion down technically, which is the exact opposite of what we observe. It looks like acceleration, because all motion is relative, but it is deceleration. You have to look at space as a line running in and out. It’s a fat line, but 1dimensional none the less. Any motion that we perceive along the x or y axis is really motion along the z axis. Mass is not gaining with our acceleration, it is expanding along the z axis as we decelerate, or slow our inward motion. Our perception of time is bound to mass and it expands and contracts with our motion. Expanding mass is perceived as slower time, and contracting mass is perceived as faster time. We are not traveling through time. Time is part of our 3D composite material in matter. Mass is the physical ingredient, where motion is the active ingredient, and time is the perceptual ingredient. The space we traverse is exactly the opposite, but equal. Time is in an expanding state for space, and a contracting state for matter. C as we see it is the rate of contraction, or change. You cannot exceed C because you would reverse course in your motion. Reversing course leads to a finite value of 0. C is not a limit of motion, it is a stop sign. It is the point at which your natural acceleration inward would flip to deceleration outward. There is an arrow of time that points inward with matter, and one that points outward for the space we move through. It’s all 1D space though, at its core.



So let me try and explain this another way. I’ve been doing this a very long time.
I’ve heard the term infinite mass and infinite motion thrown around in science forever and a decade. What the hell does that mean, I’ve wondered.
There is a logical limit to motion at 1. So how could motion ever be infinite?
1 as a definition of motion, is instantaneous motion. Nothing can go faster from A to B, for obvious reason. At least I hope it’s obvious to everyone. You also need a starting point of 0 to confirm or measure your motion. Time is also required to gauge motion. When we accelerate we gain mass, and that is irrefutable. We have hard evidence on that fact. We also know that instantaneous motion is real, because we see it in particle entanglement. As a point in fact, instantaneous motion defines a state of finite motion, from our perspective. To suggest something could move faster than 1 is irrational logic, because you would be invoking some sort of weird time travel scenario, where you ended up at your destination before you moved anywhere. There is also no mathematical limit in how slight your acceleration can be, so mathematically speaking, you could accelerate forever.
The point being, infinite motion requires an upper and lower limit of what it can be. 0<∞V<1. To move infinitely is to never reach a finite limit. We have an upper and lower limit of what motion can physically be. You’re either not moving at 0, or you’re moving without perceiving time and space at 1. Finite limits in all 3 dimensions of existence are reached at v=1, where time=0, and space=0. Ironically, what you notice is the space=0. Space=mass, but matters value would have to go to m=1. It is a finite limit of what matter can be while in perceived motion.
The conflict here is that mass=space, and for space to be tangible mass that we can experience in matter or traversable space, it must possess energy. Energy is derived from motion. Motion in the universe can only do 4 things logically, accelerate, decelerate, stop, or reach it’s maximum logical limit. To go from acceleration to deceleration, or vice versa, motion must always pass through a finite state of either 0 or 1. And because matter is defined by its motion and time, it must follow the same laws of motion. As I suggested, C is not a limit of motion, it is a stop sign. It is a transition point between the acceleration and deceleration of matter and traversable space. If that limit of C is reached in matter, matter goes to 1, and space goes to 0, where matter than flips and becomes part of traversable space, decelerating while expanding outward. Bang, an explosion.
And the 5th thing motion could do, which it can never do, is hold steady at a constant velocity, contrary to what we observe in the motion of light. The only true constant is change. If anything in the universe could hold a steady velocity time wouldn’t function properly. Change would be erratic and unpredictable. Everything has to be doing the same thing relative to each other. Matter accelerates at a constant rate, making change constant in matter, and space decelerates at a constant rate, making change in space constant. That’s what makes the universe infinite. Space that we perceive is expanding and decelerating, and matter that we perceive is contracting and accelerating. Time creates our steady and consistent relative perspective, making everything appear somewhat static in nature. The laws of motion couldn’t work any other way.
Infinity needs two opposing finite reference points to exist. If someone claims the universe is infinite in extent, they are claiming the universe is static in extent, making the entire universe finite in extent. It’s a really big finite, but finite none the less. They are contradicting themselves. They are making infinity static. Static=finite. Infinity is an active state of change, relying on finite upper and lower limits to define itself as infinite. It can be no other way logically.
The universe is both finite and infinite, because it possesses properties of both. What defines them is a function of time. If T=1, space=1, because motion=0. If T=0, space=0, because motion=1. Motionless space does go on forever, in a state of 1 as measured from time in the universe, but technically, it is 1, or finite, not infinite. The universe is <1 and >0, making it infinite in change only. The only question that remains is whether or not OUR universe will continue changing forever, and whether or not it had a beginning. I don’t have an answer for those questions. That is beyond what I do here. I know it wasn’t anything like a Big Bang. It’s a wave, with matter being derived from 1, or the outer limit, not 0, or the inner limit. The wave creates matter as it expands outward into motionless space. Matter contracts inward and dissipates/converts into traversable space, as the universal wave continues to expand outward and expand. Matter is continually being fed into the universe as it expands. Something Einstein was working on before he passed in order to keep the vacuum density in space.
I think what we’re dealing with is the collapse of motionless space. An unlimited supply of potential mass energy. It’s the raw fuel that keeps the wave trucking along. The perfect wave.

Another thought occurred to me. You could theoretically be in two places at once, at least by observation. If something moved from A to B, then from B to A, at the finite motion of 1, where time=0 and space=0, it could appear to be in two places at once from a third party perspective. Just a thought.

Let me clarify a statement. Acceleration only occurs in a single direction of motion, and deceleration only occurs in the opposite direction of motion. I realized there may be a little confusion in the way I have written some of this. I see these things in my head and take for granted it’s not easy translate fully sometimes to others. You have to reverse course along the motion axis completely to go into a decelerating state, and head outward. That middle point is C, where acceleration flips to from acceleration to deceleration. It has to do with your position in the universe. You are always contracting inward when you are in perceived motion, until you try to to breach the limit of C. That’s why I say you have to pass through a finite value when you reverse course, where you contractive energy flips to expansive energy. You can flip prematurely at C where your motion is forced to 0, or wait for an inevitable 1, which also leads to 0. Basically what I’m saying is that from C<1 is acceleration, and from 0<C is deceleration.
Hope I’m explaining that well enough.

Keep in mind, the speed of light is arbitrarily slow. The universe itself is estimated to be about 92 billion light years across. That would make the speed of light 1/92,000,000,000th the maximum logical potential of motion at 1. We’re sitting on the bleeding edge of C somewhere, contracting inward. Barely over the line.
 This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by Andy.



Does light need an aether?
I know this is going to be hard, if not impossible for anyone around here to accept. But, I have to follow my reasoning no matter where it leads. It explains way too many things to be the mere vivid imagination of a critical thinker.
No, light does not need an aether to move.
Light is surfacing the universal wave.
Light is both a particle, and a “wave”. In some ways, light doesn’t really move, although that’s not really a good way to look at it. Believe me, I’ve gone back and forth on this one and it’s a hard one to visualize. Probably harder to accept. But, it is what it is.
As I have explained previously, there are two flavors of energy related to mass from its motion, contractive mass energy, and expansive mass energy. The expansive mass energy is what we call waves. In sound, waves are generated through series of collisions of matter. Not the same thing. The results are similar in that it generates waves of sound, but mechanically it is a different wave process. Light doesn’t need to collide with anything to move.
Light is a particle caught on the very edge of expansion and contraction, powered by the universal waves motion. When light is at C=0, t=1, mass=x, the wave immediately overtakes it, pushing it back to C=1, t=0, mass=x. The wave passes it, pulling it back to C=0, T=1, mass=x. It is flipping back and forth between a wave and a particle, sliding down the wave while contracting inward with each cycle. It;s like a new light with each cylce as well, because it is accelerating with our acceleration. Light has mass, and although I have refrained from using +/ thus far, it may be easier to understand that light is both + and , from a standpoint of energy, but cannot be in both states simultaneously. It is somewhat energy neutral due to the fact is flipping back and forth between energy states.
The term mass is hard to talk about at this point, because mass isn’t matter exclusive. Mass simply describes space in motion. The space that we traverse is space in motion, just a decelerating state of motion. That space is expansive mass. When the wave overtakes light, light experiences deceleration to 0, where it immediately comes back into existence as a particle and moves to its maximum possible velocity, where it flips back again as the wave overtakes it again.
You have to consider that space is 1dimensional. And as I explained it’s a really fat 1dimension, because the line turns in on itself. The outward direction of space is omnidirectional, where the inward direction is more of a conical shape pointing towards 0. Matters resistance to motion is probably related to the width of the cone, like a scoop of ice cream sitting on an ice cream cone. The wider the cone the more stable your ice cream sitting on top the cone, and the more it’s going to resist motion. Generally speaking. However, that is getting beyond what I do. I’m just looking for general knowledge that can explain things in plain English in a practical manner. I’m not trying to build a nuclear reactor, or even write a scientific paper, as either would be an exercise in futility for someone like me. I don’t possess those sort of skills.

Correction: I meant to say, light is surfing, not surfacing the universal wave.


I hope I’m in the right place with this post. I’m assuming I am sitting on the edge of discovery with rebel scientists and likeminded critical thinkers. Those who refuse to confine themselves to a safe, comfortable, sealed box, packed with mounds of knowledge they are expected to accept until they can calculate their way out of it, accompanied by absolute proofs. A place where everyone intrinsically knows that knowledge doesn’t come from a box, it comes from human beings who dared to think outside the box. Outside that box lies understanding, which is the ultimate conquest for all critical thinkers. Myself alike. We don’t follow the rules.
A formula means absolutely nothing to anyone without a human being to explain it. Regurgitating knowledge is not an explanation, because it lacks understanding. e=mc^2 is knowledge, but there isn’t a person on the face of the planet, dead or alive, that could explain it, not even Einstein himself.
My approach to understanding the universe is radically different from science, and probably from most around here, which is as much out of necessity as it is a product of who I am as a human being. For me, I want an explanation, not a formula. And I think it’s possible to just understand it all through imagination, reason, and logic, without a single stroke of the pen or a tap on the keyboard. That answer exists, waiting for someone to think it up in their mind and imagine the mechanical process. And you’ll just know it’s right when you know it.
I think one of the greatest mysteries in the universe is how and why we’re here. What animates us? How can we move around, and think, and just exist? It is as improbable in my mind as it is intriguingly and curiously impossible in my mind. Yet here we are. The only thing that could truly exist is space. I’ve felt that way since I was a teenager. That hasn’t changed in nearly 60 years.
Mainstream science proposes a dense ball of energy but offers no explanation of its physical properties or for its existence. In my mind that contradicts the reality of our predicament in understanding the universe. While energy is definable in its actions or general results, it is not definable in terms of its physical existence. You can’t grab a bottle of energy off a shelf. Energy is a byproduct of space, but not a tangible asset like space. It is what space does, as Glenn Borchardt suggests and I thoroughly agree, not what’s applied to space as a thirdparty magical ingredient giving life to the universe. Energy does not exist in the real world. Energy is a fleeting temporary condition of space, not a permanence like space.
With that thought in mind, clearly space has a tendency towards motion. It can’t help it for whatever reason. The confounding problem is that we have no rational explanation as to why it moves resulting in energy. As critical thinkers, we all need cause and effect, and motion cannot be the cause and effect of its own motion, because motion is undeniably the definition of energy. Energy is never 100% efficient in its application within the universe. Our universe should not exist, yet it does.
Another aspect of the universe becomes abundantly clear in this reasoning. The universe is a machine, so the universe must possess an influx of raw or unrealized potential energy to maintain its own motion. I don’t see any way around it. The universe would also have to be the simplest machine imaginable, because it only consists of one single simple physical ingredient, space. Space in continual motion is what we absolutely must be in the absence of all other tangible ingredients. And our motion, like everything else we observe, is a temporary condition. Enjoy it while it lasts.
On this site, most everyone tends to believe the universe is infinite. What that means exactly depends on who you ask. In a more general consensus globally, some say infinity doesn’t exist. Some think the universe is finite. While still others believe the universe is infinite in extent and time. When there are so many different explanations for the same thing, I tend to the assumption that everyone is wrong, because we aren’t fully understanding the fundamental problem. We’re missing some crucial piece of knowledge to help advance our understanding uniformly. In the absence of that critical piece of knowledge, human beings tend towards assumptions and beliefs. Consensus then propels those assumptions and beliefs to the forefront of knowledge and understanding. It’s a slippery slope.
There is a far greater value to human beings in truly understanding a problem, than knowledge could ever provide a human being. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled with understanding.
So, I propose an idea, and an explanation.
0<∞<1
That’s all the universe is.
The 0 and the 1 are the binding points of mathematics and numerical logic for the universe. ∞ acts as a natural variable in the above statement, possessing many values at any given moment in time, not one specific value as is defined by mathematics currently. What infinity is defining is derived from the 0 and 1.
The statement would also tell us that 0 and 1 lies outside the universe, residing as potential to be part of the universe.
∞ itself is a nonabsolute, meaning it can be anything mathematically tangible or realistic within our universe. Nonabsolute being a matter of perspective, mathematically speaking. 0 and 1 can exist within our universe, but not 0 and 1. They are special values beyond our reach. They are what drives our universe into being.
It would be irrational to assume something can come from nothing, so 1 must be the fuel source for the universal machine. I see it as a motionless state of space. Once motion begins, it is no longer motionless space. Space converts to tangible mass, mass being defined by the motion it possesses, which we define as energy. The space that we traverse, and mass, must possess motion for us to experience it as part of our universe. Space we traverse is not space, it is mass.
E=mc^2
We are mass energy, and our space is mass energy. Just two different equal but opposite flavors of motion, giving us two different equal but opposite forms of energy in mass.
Something Stephen Hawkings once pondered stuck in my mind. If you took the sum of all positive and negative energy, it’s value would be 0. I think that he was right, and that it answers a longstanding question.
1/0 = ∞
Something and nothing cannot occupy the same state, meaning 1 and 0 cannot occupy the same space physically. They stand divided, separated by an infinite universe.
∞ is a definition of mass energy, because the universe is infinite in nature. Just not the same infinity we imagined it to be. Infinity is motion, and that motion must be constant for space to possess mass energy. As I mentioned in above posts, infinity is the constant of change. It has nothing to do with scale, extent, quantity, or a specific numeric value.
0 x ∞ = 1, not 1. 1 being the maximum state of motion/energy, where mass=0 and time=0. It is the transition point from – to + energy, as was explained in previous posts above. I am defining – as contracting mass energy, and + as expanding mass energy.
1 / ∞ = 0, not 0. Steven Hawkings. The sum of all energy =0. 1 is motionless space. It is the raw fuel that powers the motion of the universe, and with that comes an endless supply. There’s an irony here. Neither motionless space, nor the universe could be infinite in extent, because motionless space must end where the universe begins, and the universe must end where motionless space begins. And I must caveat that thought with, at any given moment in time.
0 and 1 are the binding numeric values for a calculable universe we can experience.
The universe is trying to solve a mathematical problem with no resolve, because 0 and 1 cannot occupy the same space. Something can’t be nothing, and nothing can’t be something. The solution is ∞, which is a little of both. I am something, but eventually I will become nothing. Which is both horrifying, and oddly comforting to know. The universe will most likely soldier on forever, given there is an endless supply of raw fuel in motionless space to keep it going, and there is nothing to prevent its expansion. A body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force. The universe favors creation. But I’m not clear on that one. That is beyond my skill set for a definitive answer. I’m reasonably certain it will soldier on, but who knows?
That’s greater universal mathematics, and we are the result of that ongoing calculation. Hmmm, GUM. I wonder if it will stick. Pure absolute mathematics, resulting in a nonabsolute product, ∞.
Unfortunately, consensus can only verify this answer over time. I cannot find a better solution in all my years of searching, so I leave it to you to decide for yourself.
I think this is as close as we can get to knowing.
Do you agree or not?

One other thing I wish to add to the last post, because the math is so utterly twisted from what anyone would find acceptable or even remotely palatable.
We are a reflection of a greater process, so the mathematics for 0 and 1 invert. What doesn’t work within our understanding of math and the universe we are immersed in, may be perfectly fine in the absolute conditions of the finite universe. It’s not the same place.
Of course, that’s not a testable theory, just a reasonable suspicion.
We are a mirror image of a finite reality beyond our reach.


Being wrong is never pleasant, and if there is anyone on this site that can appreciate all the negatives that are associated with continual failure, I can. My entire conclusions were developed in the back alleys and dark rooms of chat forums. Those are the dregs of the scientific community in most cases. Those are NOT typically places where anyone with scientific knowledge is looking to discover anything new, or figure anything out, with few exceptions. Nice guys are the rare exception to the rule. Most are there for one reason and one reason only. To pump up their own egos and disparage anyone and everyone that did not spend 10 years in a classroom amassing knowledge, without so much as a single original thought. Most sites won’t even allow questioning the accepted versions of science on any level, like the big bang. Questioning it leads to a “crackpot” label and being banned from posting for xtime as punishment, as they send you on your way. It’s viscous, and contradicts everything they bill themselves as from the casual passerby, and everything science should stand for on many levels. It’s a snakepit of vipers sitting in wait, ready to strike.
You guys know exactly what I’m talking about, because you’re here on the fringe, with me. Pushed outside the collective box of scientific knowledge.
The most significant aspect of all my thoughts and BS writing that I can offer anyone here is a new state to contemplate, absolute 1, an opposing state of absolute 0. It’s real, and it exists beyond our universe. Absolute 0 is the direction of the within, and absolute 1 is the direction of the without. The universe cannot be “infinite” in extent. Of that, I am 100% confident in my reasoning, because I can back it up with mathematical logic. Not a statement I make lightly. Absolute 0 and absolute 1 define 1 dimensional space. Absolute 1 is a finite state of the universe, and lies outside the universe we traverse, which is infinite. Just not the same infinity we thought it was.
0<∞<1
Ironically, infinity represent a calculable universe, where 1 represents an incalculable universe. Although 1 is endless, it cannot be considered infinite. The reason is, 1 is an endpoint on a 1dimensional line. Sure, it’s a big ass end point in reality, but a point mathematically none the less, because its value is 1 everywhere. If you add time it is a 2dimensional state, frozen with 0 motion. Time follows mass, so when all values of a definable state of space are 1, time=1. It has the potential to become part of the 3 dimensional space that we experience, but it is not part of us until motion begins. It has no energy, because its motion is 0.
The value of 1 has no calculable properties, and no definable dimension, because it is an endless state stretching outward forever. x=x is about all you can do with it.
If anyone continues down this path of an infinite Cantor universe, you will find yourselves on a path leading to nowhere. It won’t survive science, because it is wrong. You will find yourselves on the wrong side of scientific discovery.
My friendly advice, start reexamining your thoughts and theories. Something which was a perpetual exercise for me over the past 35+ years.
My theory was not built on success, it was built on continuous failure for over 30+ years. Until I finally found the flaw in my reasoning and started righting the ship. I’ve been hit in the head with countless physics books, bullied by mindless intellectuals full of knowledge, been “crackpotted”, and banned from forums. Failure after failure lead me on a path to certainty.
I am not wrong.

And this is the man everyone should have been listening to over Cantor back in the late 1800’s, but the scientific consensus at the time led to the belief that our universe was endless in nature, so Cantor won out. Cantor attempted to extend our manmade numbering system out to the ends of a hypothetical “infinite” universe, without understanding what infinity meant to reality. There is no difference logically between 1,2 and 2,3. It’s just redundant logic. Leopold called bullshit on Cantor, but no one was willing to listen. Leopold was grounded in reality, Cantor was dabbling in assumptions and scientific beliefs. Leopold recognized that numbers were an invention of man. We’ve been applying that Cantor reality to the universe ever since, while Leopold slipped into obscurity, only known by those in mathematics. Cantor is pop culture.
Leopold Kronecker (German: [ˈkʁoːnɛkɐ]; 7 December 1823 – 29 December 1891) was a German mathematician who worked on number theory, algebra and logic. He criticized Georg Cantor‘s work on set theory, and was quoted by Weber (1893) as having said, “<i lang=”de” title=”German language text”>Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk” (“God made the integers, all else is the work of man”).<sup>[1]</sup> Kronecker was a student and lifelong friend of Ernst Kummer.

To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications – he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,<sup>[72]</sup> and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.<sup>[5]</sup><div>
</div><div>I’m not suggesting what Cantor did was useless nonsense. In the world of mathematics I’m sure sets are very useful, and possibly useful in other areas of science, but there is no such thing as “absolute infinity”. The only thing science needs for a basic understanding of the universe is 0, 1, infinity, and finite. There is nothing else beyond 1. The universe cannot count, human beings do that. Cantor pushed numbers into the realm of pseudoscience, religion, and metaphysics. </div>
Cantor placed way more significance in numbers and infinity than was ever justified mathematically or scientifically. It was not real. He came to a conclusion about infinity that suited his ideology, and everyone else’s in that time period. He thought infinity was tied religion and god. He jumped to an end result, and we got stuck with an absurd mathematical definition as, a number greater than any assignable or countable number. That number does not exist. It is intentional redundant logic created by man. There is no end to numbers, until the human race goes extinct. Then they’re all finite. Cantor erroneously defined infinity as a number, and the world welcomed the conclusion in those times because it appeared to bridge theology and science. Infinity was a place beyond our comprehension, a place only god and religion could exist, which was inaccessible to mere mortals.


There’s always been this puzzle as to why the universe follows mathematics, and no one has been able to solve the puzzle. But if you really think about, and I mean really think about, it’s a remarkably simple answer. And it makes perfect logical sense.
Motion is linear and 1 dimensional. Something can be stopped at 0, or reach a maximum state of 1. Acceleration and deceleration is a perfect analog process along a forward or backward linear path. No step can be skipped over, and something can either stop on 0, or reach the maximum limit. Simple linear motion is the universes way of performing analog counting, so to speak. Not to suggest there is will to count. Motion is a natural part of the universe we exist within. We can correlate analog motion to numbers, because numbers are linear.
Matter works the same way, because matter follows a linear order of expansion or contraction along a 1dimensional path.
Time follows whatever matter or the space that we traverse, and must also follow a perfect linear order.
Steps can never be skipped in nature, because each dimension must function in a linear manner. It’s not miraculous, or complicated, or mysterious to understand.
We exist in a 3dimensional universe, built on time, motion, and mass, with each individual dimension following a perfect linear order of motion. It’s the only way it can be.
The finite limits of 0 and 1 guarantee us a correlation between an analog universe and a man made digital numbering system.
The universe isn’t bound to the laws of mathematics, it’s the only way it can be. It’s doing what it must do naturally, because there is no other choice in the matter. That’s the way linear properties or processes work.
Consider that mystery solved. Not a big deal, and not all that mysterious or remarkable.

I’d like to talk about the 10 assumptions of science, by Glenn Borchardt. A piece of scientific literature I consider of great significance and importance. The philosophy behind it is spot on, but being the unapologetic thinker that I am, I see some alternate truths to the philosophy. So there needs to be some preface to those assumptions, in my humble opinion.
I have to admit, I have not read it, I perused through it, and use it as a reference guide. It’s well organized as a reference manual. What I did read was the Scientific World View. Essentially the same thing in much greater detail. Excellent read. Went through it at least 4 times on audible while driving back and forth to work.
The first thing I’d like to suggest, is that assumptions themselves are a sort of veiled belief. So I think it’s important to temper any assumption with reason and logic. Let’s just say they are a somewhat uncommitted belief, but worth pursuing in the context of true scientific discovery. As such, assumptions, like beliefs, are meant to fall. So in that context, The 10 Assumptions of Science is more of a dynamic scientific checklist begging answers. Once an assumption is clearly understood, it is no longer an assumption. It’s just fact. The assumptions themselves though, are not the facts. They are an uncommitted potential truth we are seeking to answer definitively.
I’ve spent my entire life following his philosophy for the most part,
instinctively, in parallel. I didn’t read The Scientific Worldview until a couple of
years ago. I was taken back. Yes, exactly! You could say I’ve been a practitioner of Glenn’s philosophical approach to science for decades.Assuming the universe is infinite is the exact right approach for all scientists, in my humble opinion. Or at least it should be. However, infinity cannot exist without finite, because they are opposing states. And our universe, one could not exist without the other. As such, both need equal consideration.
The chapter on infinity is a bit misleading. Not because the idea of infinity is misleading, because there is a lot of additional assumptions being made within the framework of that assumption. The first assumption being, we all know what infinity means in the context of reality. Yes, we have some very loose or shaky concepts in mathematics, like absolute infinity by Georg Cantor, but that too is an assumption, not fact. There is no mathematical or scientific proof to verify there is such a thing. Infinity itself is propped up in the scientific realm with loosely held random beliefs, not even assumptions. Scientists believe the question was answered, and they’re looking at facts about infinity, and that they firmly believe they understand infinity. That is a contradiction to an assumption, which is an uncommitted belief. We are not only assuming infinity, but assuming we understand the true nature of infinity, which is based on completely unsubstantiated claims in mathematics. There is no proof of infinity in extent, quantity, or countable numbers. It is a mathematical assumption that is being applied to our understanding of infinity, and being taken as a fact of nature. Infinity itself is currently held as a belief.
I argue, infinity is only present between integers, 0<∞<1. That is a mathematical fact, and anything more or less than that is an undeniable assumption, or worse, a belief. Especially considering, we made up all the other integers so we could trade seashells for pelts. Where finite begins, infinity must begin, and where infinity ends, so too must finite. It’s a very simple linear problem. So simple in fact, that it has been completely ignored for millennia in preference to unsubstantiated and unverifiable endlessness. Everybody wants infinity to be more than it is. I reject the idea that infinity is limitless based on the facts. I’m not making any assumptions at that point. I am following what the mathematical logic is telling us, and taking it at face value. Anything more or less than that is an assumption on top of an assumption, which is then extended to a belief. People believe infinity is endless, and they are wrong.
I’m right, and everyone else is wrong. Not that I take any pride or accolades in such an apparent egotistical sounding statement. I certainly am not stating that as anything more than a general fact. It is just a bland lifeless mathematical fact. Like 1+1=2. I don’t believe in facts, because they’re just true or false statements. I am following logic, everyone else appears to be following long held ancient cultural beliefs. The universe is not endless. Question answered. Next!
And that brings me to the uncertainty assumption. The 10 assumptions of science essentially claims it is impossible to know everything about something, but always possible to know more about something. In that context, I now know more about infinity, because it is possible to know more about anything, including infinity itself.
I think you also have to temper uncertainty with certainty. Uncertainty is a measure of certainty, so there would have to be some things we could be absolutely certain about or nothing would make sense. I am certain 1+1=2. Uncertainty always relies on certainty. They are codependent terms. You cannot have one without the other. Uncertainty rises the further away from the problem you get. If you’re trying to predict something, uncertainty rises exponentially, because it is nearly impossible to take all variables into account. In the present, we can absolutely be 100% certain. That’s what happened. The past however, suffers the same uncertainties as the future, where answers get a bit murkier and uncertain the further back you look.
I’ve spent a great of my life abandoning belief. I struck it from my vocabulary many years ago, as a matter of fact. I weighed logic and reasoning in degrees of certainty. That’s the way I approached the universe. Things I was less certain about I would take out for a spin in the swamp (forums), and await critical feedback. I would ride that thought to the bitter end. It would either hold up to other peoples sense of reason, or fail. When it failed, I cast it aside and reevaluated my own reasoning. Yeah, that was a dumb idea, next!
I can only look back and laugh at myself for some of the ridiculous things I came up with in the past. Really, some were completely absurd.
I wish scientists would do more of that. Sit down an rewrite it from scratch. They just keep holding to these theories as if they are gospel, inserting more and more nonsense to keep them propped up. And then the media hits it, and it turns into some sort of twisted cultural belief. Meanwhile, science claims a theory is never true or false, while they quietly hold to a belief that it is a fact. Consensus rules science, which isn’t too different from religion on many levels.
There is one undeniable fact. Infinity is an incalculable condition as a whole using traditional mathematics. By it’s very nature, only human logic and reasoning can understand it, and solve it. It requires a new approach in math to verify its state with absolute certainty mathematically. Traditional math cannot touch it. 1/0=∞. 1/∞=0. 0x∞=1.
For me, infinity has been checked off the assumption list in Glenn’s 10 assumptions of science. It is no longer an assumption, it’s a fact. Just wasn’t the same infinity we culturally imagined it to be over the past few millennia. Our universe is limited in extent, not endless in extent, but it could be endless over time, and quite possibly, have had a beginning.
There’s always more to know.
My 2 cents.

My writing can be wrought with grammatical flaws and unintentional inconsistencies. For example, I would change the following
From:
In the present, we can absolutely be 100% certain. That’s what happened.
To:
In the present, we can absolutely be 100% certain. That’s what happening now.
So please, read it with a little latitude.
I’m essentially laying down the gauntlet.
This is a mathematical fact:
0<∞<1
Science’s version is a mathematical assumption:
0<1<∞
I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. Science has to invalidate accepted mathematical logic to prove their version of mathematical logic is correct. And they cannot use anything but those 3 conditions, which are all unique variables within the problem, because we invented counting. Anything more than 1 is also an assumption.
That’s the gist of what I’m getting at.

The universe is infinite by mathematical default, because we aren’t 0, and we aren’t 1. Finite is the assumption.



I’m going to try and explain the concept of 3D motion a little deeper, something I’ve attempted in the past but with limited success. It was hard to explain and it also wasn’t a more developed concept at the time. I could see it but I hadn’t quite gotten a handle on infinity.
All matter and the space we traverse moves 3dimensionally. The reasoning behind it is pretty simple. Our universe only consists of three 1dimensional states, bound together by the action of motion. Motion is energy, and everything in our universe can be considered mass energy. Motion cannot occur within individual dimensions, because all three dimensions are dependent on one another to exist in a 3D manner, including the space we move through. Motion can only occur 3dimensionally. It’s what we observe fundamentally as well. Mass is perceived to increase with observed acceleration, and time is also altered as well. That is all 3 dimensions, without question.
All matter is already in an accelerating state of motion inward traveling at C and contracting. Contraction is the fundamental motion. Of course, it’s a relative state that we can’t notice physically.
To make this simpler to understand, imagine a round ball contained in a magnetic field from all sides. The field is pushing on it so it becomes centered in the field. Now imagine you could control the force against the ball by reducing it’s resistance to the external force at any point along the surface. The ball would move in that direction.
For matter, the process is reversed. The ball wants to move 3dimensionally inward in a straight line along a linear path leading to 0 in the middle, naturally. When we move, we aren’t technically moving in a sense. We are redirecting the inward motion already present in the system. We can redirect that motion along any path in an omnidirectional manner. It looks like acceleration from the outside, but we are not accelerating per se, we are simply resisting inward motion in a controlled manner, and redirecting. That’s the fundamental principle of motion.
It really does make sense to me that motion would already be present. Not just the centrifugal motion we see everywhere. Why would all matter be spinning for no good reason, as we observe? Science thinks it’s related to some mysterious field caused from within matter, as if each atom has a built in Duracell battery with a nearly unlimited supply of energy. The built in battery is supposed to be responsible for the mass, spin, nuclear weak, nuclear strong, magnetism, gravity, etc etc. I don’t think so. We’re lucky to get a day or so on a charge of a lithium ion battery in our cell phones. Anything we make requires a continual input of fuel to get any output. Never added up to me. We’re talking about things that last billions of years, like hydrogen.
In my view, I find the concept of an internal power source highly unlikely and highly doubtful. The useable energy in an atom is a result of continual contraction and its motion, and is merely a relative state of mass energy. Mass energy is being lost at a high rate over time with contraction, and relative to everything else it only appears static or constant and packed with energy. The magnitude of energy drops, but everything relative to us also drops, so the 1to1 relationship is maintained
Anyway, I hope I explained that well enough.

<div>Okay, so lets consolidate, something I do after a time. </div><div>
</div><div>
There are two universes essentially, or two parts to the universe. An absolute finite universe, and an infinite universe. We exist in the infinite universe, which is dynamic and undergoing the constant of change. The finite portion of the universe is motionless space. It begins where infinity ends. Although you could imagine this as an endless void, its value is considered 1. It is exactly the same everywhere. It’s an end point on a 1D line segment.
We exist because the potential of no universe, or 0, exists. 1 and 0 cannot occupy the same space. Or in English, something isn’t nothing, and nothing isn’t something, and the universe cannot be both absolutes at the same time. We are a little of both in a nonabsolute state. Our universe divides 0 and 1, so it sits between these two potential states. Although, 1/0=∞, it’s not really about a solution to the problem. It doesn’t solve per se. It’s an active solution, with no apparent end, as far as I can imagine. This is what gives the total universe a maximum potential of 1, and a minimum potential of 0, forming 1dimensional space.
Space is 1dimensional. It’s really not that hard to understand. The maximum state of the universe is motionless space, and the minimum state is no space. We exist as something more than nothing, and something less than everything. Although we can imagine space with dimension with or without something in it, it cannot be 3D until the addition 1D motion and 1D time. The space we traverse and matter must possess motion, for us to recognize it as part of our universe. We experience energy, which is space in motion, not motionless space. Only potential lies in motionless space.
The big bang did not happen. Space cannot be created or destroyed. Unless you’re talking about emptying out your closet, or filling it back up. If you really think about it, and I mean really think about it, it is a completely absurd concept. It is irrational logic that makes no sense. Someday when science accepts the reality of what they’re proposing, I think they’ll look back at it as another flat Earth idea. Time also cannot be created or destroyed. First off, it’s not really a thing. It’s a derivative property of space in motion as we view it. It allows us to gain perspective.
There is a definite definable link to mathematics. That link is tied to the primary absolutes of 0 and 1. If you look at this problem, which is on going, 1/0=∞, it yields non absolute 0 and 1 which do reside in our universe. What they mean is dependent on time and motion, and is merely a relative perspective. 1/∞=0. 0x∞=1. We have some properties of 0 and 1 in our universe, but neither 0 or 1 can occur in our piece of the universe.
Our range of motion is 0 to 1. Times range of frequency of 0 to 1. Motion itself is a function of expansion and contraction, not pure linear motion as we observe. Motion does not occur without space and time. Motion always occurs 3dimensionally, because all 3 dimensions we are comprised of are impact by motion.
Space has mass, and matter has mass. Everything within our universe moves, including space. Mass is definable as motion+space. Motionless space cannot exist within our universe. That’s finite motionless space, which lies outside our universe.
So let me add a couple of mass terms to avoid confusion.
Em=space we traverse
Cm=matter
Motion for Cm begins on the outer edge of the universe, and contracts inward to the inner edge accelerating to 1. Once Cm reaches the inner edge at v=1, then t=0 and Cm=0. It reflect back out converting to Em in the process, and expands all the way back out to where it began. The edge is, v=0, t=1, Em=1. This creates two unique forms of mass energy, contractive energy, and expansive energy.
The important thing to understand here is, matter comes from motionless space, where the Value of Em=1, T=1, V=0. Time and space is already present in manufacturing process. It’s just waiting to move to convert to mass energy that we can experience.
I’m guessing it’s the collapse of dimensionless 1D motionless space. The outer edge would be a high mass, low energy, low entropy state, ripe for particle formation. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we would have a high energy, low mass, high entropy state. That must be ideal conditions for recognizable space, or Em to form.
I think the total process is generating a wave of creation, which sweeps outward into motionless space. It could even be a continuous series of waves, but from the inside of each waves physics would be identical, without a doubt. We’re dealing with 3 1dimensional states, so they can’t do a whole lot. It would work something like this. We would exist within 1 single wave of a set. Maybe wave set 7,8. We would see it from a relative perspective of 0,1, however, for the purposes of explanation, the proceeding wave would be set 6,7, and the next wave out would be 8,9. Our maximum state of 8 would be 0 in the next wave out, and the one before us our 7 would be the 1. It’s all relative motion. I am not suggesting these is or isn’t more universes, but if there were, our universe would be very similar to ripples in a pond. They would be perfectly linear in nature.
The universe is basically the perfect machine creating the perfect wave. Motionless space is the raw fuel, continually feeding into the system as it expands outward, forever slowing down over time. The matter coming in would be forever accelerating over time, because the distance between the inner and outer wall would be expanding. And because of the laws of motion that we do understand, a body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force, so there is nothing to stop the expansion. Our universe is moving 3dimensionally outward. Our universe favors creation.
It’s just space bouncing back and forth growing over time. It’s so simple, it has to be right. It can’t really do anything else, because we’re dealing with 3 simple linear processes, space, time, and motion.
So I’ve destroyed the notion of 3D space as we currently understand it. Embedded time and motion into matter and space. Eliminated dark energy. Eliminated spacetime. Killed the big bang and turned us into a wave. Tied the expansion to an influx of energy, eliminating the violations in the laws of motion and the conservation of energy. We are not a perpetual motion machine, and we do not gain energy over time, because we have an external fuel source motionless space to power the entire universe and drive expansion. With an unlimited supply of fuel. I’ve given a rough outline on the motion of light, and eliminated the need for aether. That’s probably not making many around here happy. Added the concept of 3D motion, which is exactly what we actually observe in motion. Einstein separated time from matter, and treated motion as an independent variable. I’ve incorporated Glenn’s Borchardt matter/motion concept into the universe. I’ve redefined infinity to match real mathematical logic, rather than the cultural beliefs that obviously define it now. What else?
When I write it all down in one place, I realize I’m getting tired of writing it all down. I feel like I’m taking some short cuts here, so forgive the writing and any unintentional flaws. Look at the gist of what I’m saying.
It’s mostly right, and I know it.
The only thing I haven’t been able to get a good handle on is gravity. Still working on some concepts for the that problem. I see it, but I can’t get the mechanics down in my mind. Getting a little tired of writing.
</div>

I’m going to focus on fundamental 3D motion again for a minute. The following is what fundamental motion truly represents.
Space can only do two things physically, expand or contract.
Imagine our universe as a sphere.
There are two directions of motion. To clarify, I need to assign a few variables, and I know they overlap commonly accepted labeling. Just ignore that for now for simplicity.
Dimension=D / Time=T / Contraction=C /Expansion=E
These represent 1D inward motion, which is driven by contraction.
Inward acceleration (D=1, T=1, C=0) —>—>— (D=0, T=0, C=1)
Outward deceleration (D=1, T=1, E=0) —<—<— (D=0, T=0, E=1)
The scale of matter determines its position in the line. The higher the rate of contraction, the faster matter moves inward along that line. The left side is the outer edge of our universe, and the right side the inner edge of our universe. As long as dimension is contracting, it must move inward. As long as dimension is expanding, it must move outward. All matter is contracting towards 0. All space is expanding towards 0. The rate of contraction along that line can be slowed down, or sped up, but it cannot stop and pause, because space can only do 2 things physically, expand or contract. Any pause invokes a state change in whatever is moving, because the object would flip from contraction to expansion. Where something is in the universe is every bit as important in what it’s doing.
Contraction = Acceleration
Expansion = Deceleration
We are not looking deep enough for the answers. We are fooled by an Earthly bias. What seems as simple as going for a jog down the street, fundamentally, is a much simpler process on one end, but mind boggling on the other. We are coaxing each individual piece of matter to change its position in the universe, by manipulating expansion and contraction of little balls of dimension that makes us up in an omnidirectional manner. We are redirecting motion and position already inherent in the system.
Each tiny little piece of matter sees itself in the center of the universe. When you lift your arm, or type, you’re manipulating the underlying condition of contraction. You’re slowing it down in a very controlled and specific manner to change the position of those little pieces.
Motion has always bugged me. I never understood how things moved. Yes, we have have well established biological and mechanical causation, but it’s felt incomplete. As far as I was concerned, we shouldn’t even be here, so how the hell do things move around?
Science is seeing everything from one side of the problem. Pack a few million pounds of hydrogen and oxygen fuel into a tube, light it, and push 10 tons of stuff up into space. They’re looking at it from a standpoint action and reaction. That’s incomplete, or one side of the problem. What we’re really doing is manipulating the expansion and contraction of each piece of matter, and directing that in a very well orchestrated and controlled and specific manner to redirect or coax motion out of contraction.
Motion is a 1dimensional linear problem. Meaning it can only do two things, in two very specific directions, inward or outward.
We got all caught up in relative motion, ignoring the fundamental meaning of motion. We wanted to know how fast things were going, so we gauge motion by things relative to us. We got caught in the speed of things, ignoring the basic logical limits of motion as if they didn’t even exist. We set a limit at the speed of light, and made our point of observation relative, not 0. How fast we’re traveling is somewhat irrelevant information in understanding fundamental motion. The motion at C is a transition point from contraction to expansion, or vice versa. It is a finite point where something is either expanding or contracting. It provokes a state change.
We are traveling on a one way trip inward to 0. You cannot go backwards as matter, only forward.
We do not move like we think we do. We manipulate our physical position in the universe by altering 1D dimensional space.
That’s our 3D universe, and that’s 3D motion. 1D time + 1D space + 1D motion = 3D universe. There are no hidden dimensions. The universe is a very simple machine fundamentally. We are only taking half the problem into account in classical mechanics, and the other half in quantum mechanics. We try to extend each one out to explain the other, thinking it will give us an answer to the universe. We’re smashing atoms in accelerators, trying to see how they’re made, while searching for that ultimate particle that gives matter energy. It does not work like that. Contraction is motion, and motion is energy, and time defines how long that mass energy is going to stick around. Time allows us to perceive distance, and calculate velocities, but underneath it all is a very simple and easily understand expansion and contraction process driving observed motion.
It is not what we thought it was. As a matter of fact, we never really looked any deeper than Einsteins relativity. We added laws which masked the answer, ruling out anything greater than the speed of light. Yet, we have quantum entanglement. Instantaneous communication between two points. As I suggested on here somewhere, QE occurs when the motion between two particles bind, making the motion between them absolute, or 1. When v=1, t=0, space=0. It’s a virtual absolute, but absolute enough to us. Because, as I said, true 1 and 0 lies outside our universe.

Drives me batty I can’t edit a post. I get an error.
This statement:
These represent 1D inward motion, which is driven by contraction.
Should have been:
These represent 1D inward and outward motion, which is driven by contraction and expansion.


I have to give Glenn Borchardt a lot of credit. In all my years searching for answers, I have never heard a single scientist or person talk about matter/motion, and he did so in such a way that the knowledge was accessible to me and my sense of reason. I really do appreciate that he makes his knowledge and understanding accessible. He speaks English. While I’ve known for many years that energy wasn’t a thing, but an action, I always had the idea of motion and the idea of energy and the idea of matter separated. Something had to cause motion. Once you truly combine them into 1 state, the answer becomes somewhat obvious. All dimension could do is expand or contract. That’s motion. At least, once you abandon conventional ideas of motion you can see it. It forced me to reason the problem through a little differently, because I agreed with his reasoning on energy. Obviously I extended his reasoning to include the space we traverse, but I couldn’t get there previously without Glenn. Gave me a shortcut.
Thank you Glenn.

In the absence of knowledge reason flourishes. Too much knowledge and reason suffers,
and the significance of understanding gets lost. And there’s obviously
a fine balance somewhere in the middle to keep reason in check.
Unbridled reasoning is equally unproductive.Explains a lot in the hay days of Einstein. They didn’t know much of anything, armed with slide rules and paper, and some mad math skills.
Once the scientific coffers of knowledge were sufficiently filled, the scientific community ate from the trough. Progress slowed, because the need to reason suffered. Driven by the vacuum of consensus, which sucked everyone towards that knowledge.
Me? I know nothing. Never took a bite from the trough. I asked scientists and people what they thought.
Scientists collectively are smarter and more knowledgeable than the masters that built the foundation from which they stand, they just don’t know it. You can’t hide from evolution.


Let me explain velocity for a moment.
Instantaneous motion is every bit as relative as the speed of light. Our perception of it changes over time, but because we’re bound to time, we can’t notice.
Assume for a moment that our universe it 92 billion light years in diameter. And let’s say C lies somewhere in the middle for simplicity sake. And lets set our watch for 5pm today.
Instantaneous motion would be 92/92=1
Speed of light would be (92/2)/92=.5
A year later at 5pm our universe has expanded to 93 billion light years.
Instantaneous motion would be 93/93=1
Speed of light would be (93/2)/93=.5
Our perspective remains constant.
Compared to last year at the same time, instantaneous motion last year was only 0.989% compared to this year, and light speed been less by the same amount proportionately.
Our motion is a function of the size of the total universe. And that’s a moving target. We’re expanding, increasing the size of the wave, increasing the potential of motion. Light speed is always on the rise.
As we view light now, it is 1/92,000,000,000th the maximum velocity, assuming the universe is 92 billion light years in diameter, which I seriously doubt is anywhere near accurate. It makes no sense. Light speed is not a limit of motion, it’s transition point between contraction and expansion which is undergoing continual change with expansion. We are probably traveling at many 1000’s of the time the speed of light already, but that is irrelevant, because our perspective is bound to mass. Time follows the dimension or scale of space, not motion per se. The more contracted an object, the faster the perception of time, and the more expanded an object, the slower the perception of time. For matter, time starts at m=1, and then contracts down to 0. For the space we traverse, time starts at m=0, expands back out to 1. It is exactly opposite of what we perceive in our motion. We think time slows with acceleration, but it doesn’t have anything to do with our velocity, it has to do with our mass state. We see mass as gaining with perceived acceleration, which is really slowing down the rate of contraction, so the matter swells a little relative to everything else, changing time.
The outer wall of the universe is on the left, and the inner wall on the right.
Matter
Time 1 —>–>— 0
Mass 1 —>–>— 0
Motion 0 —>–>— 1
Space we Traverse
Time 1 —<–<— 0
Mass 1 —<–<— 0
Motion 0 —<–<— 1
The action is the creation of matter, which contracts in while accelerating until it hits the far interior wall the universe. The reaction is when that mass/matter energy hits that interior wall, and then reflects back out as expansive energy decelerating to the far edge.
Deceleration gets a slight push from expansion when the matter converts over to expansion, giving it just enough energy to return from where it came.
It’s an extremely simple machine, but absolutely perfect in function, with an unlimited amount of fuel in motionless space to keep the wave going. There is nothing in the way to stop it from expanding, so theoretically speaking, our universe should expand forever.
The universe is just collapsing and expanding dimension bouncing back and forth in a moving wave. We can manipulate motion be tampering with the rate of contraction in matter.

I use a wide range of topics to convey my ideas, or theory if you’d like to call it that. I incorporate a little philosophy, a little basic math, logic, reason, history, and a few assumptions, etc. I don’t think science should be done in a vacuum. We rely on math for empirical data, but math is a tool, not an answer. It always takes a human being to derive meaning from a mathematical result. Math is not an answer, it’s the result of the question, or an unknown result promoted to a theory. Dark Energy for example.
Understanding people, philosophy, culture and religion, etc., is every bit as important in our quest to understand the universe. They cannot be disregarded as irrelevant, try as we may to uphold the “idea” of the objective observer. Human beings are not objective creatures. We hold opinions and beliefs, possess deep emotion that most definitely sways our judgement in what we even communicate to others, and make a lot of assumptions to navigate the world around us. To think science is somehow above all that in their approach to understanding is naive. They’re bound to laws of nature, and the human condition in nature, just like everyone else, and nothing can remove unobjective scientists from the equation. It’s not even an option really. It is something every scientist should be amply aware of when they enter the field. People have opinions and hold beliefs. Everyone.
Never does this become more apparent than in a comment David de Hilster made to one of my posts. Just pointing it out David. Nothing meant by it. “Be careful about being so sure”. Something to that effect. In other words, remain uncertain. I would argue, there is a time to weight your conclusions with certainty and uncertainty, but when those conclusions lead you to certainty, don’t be afraid to say it. I am certain, 0<∞<1, is correct.
Can anyone prove it wrong? No.
We must weed out the bullshit in science, and to do that, you must understand people.
Cantor is a great example. And I am not picking on religion here, or him, so don’t twist what I’m saying. Whatever someone needs to get them from A to B is fine with me. I neither agree, nor disagree. Religion isn’t all that bad as a concept, as far as family and community goes. I grew up in a very religious family.
Cantor was not doing science or mathematics. Cantor was on a religious quest, or crusade. Cantor believed god spoke to him and gave him a religious mandate to reveal trans infinite numbers to mankind. Honestly, I don’t even know what a trans infinite number means, as I’m sure 99.999999% of the world population doesn’t either. Cantor was decidedly unobjective. He believed infinity was god. Naturally, Cantor was going to find a mathematical solution for infinity no matter what he did. He was an extremist religious fanatic. Clearly. God gave Georg Cantor math homework? Really?
Back then, fanatical was okay. Even Leopold made the comment, “god made the integers, all else is the work of man.” Or something to that effect. Leopold did not agree with Cantor’s set theory one bit and found it all nonsense. Leopold was both right and wrong. But they both held strong beliefs.
Numbers are an invention of mankind from around the 5th century BC. Indian mathematicians developed a base 10 redundant numeric system that was easy to understand and could be taught. They chose a base 10 system because it coincided with what mankind was already doing, counting on our fingers. If we had 4 fingers on each hand, it would have been a base 8 system, or 3 fingers, a base 6 system.
Numbers were an invention, like a car, or an airplane, or a stapler. Although the invention of numbers was a huge leap forward in mankind, because it consolidated what we were all already doing on our fingers into one thing, numbers themselves don’t mean anything to the universe. Defining a consistent way to count gave us the ability to teach others how to count uniformly. Numbers were a disruptive technology that brought human beings together under one common language. Numbers were an invention of communication. A global language.
Math was the discovery, not numbers. We notice we could perform fundamental math on our fingers. We could easily add, subtract, divide, and multiply within the space of 10 digits. And with this newly invented redundant numbering system, we realized math applied to that too no matter how big the number(s). We then needed ways to manage these larger numbers, so highlevel mathematics were developed. Mathematics evolved around a solid useful invention of a base 10 numbering system. People could now communicate ideas numerically. It was disruptive.
Numbers themselves weaved their way into the fabric of society and took on a whole new meaning. Religion wormed its way into the invention. Numerology is an excellent example of people being people. The lucky number 7 wouldn’t even be a thing if we had developed a base 6 numbering system.
What’s important to note here, is that math was the true discovery of nature, because math is translatable to physical reality. The universe behaves mathematically. That discovery was the birth of true science. I would go as far as to say, that was the most significant discovery in all of mankind, hands down. Numbers? Meh.
Throw out the invention and find the root cause of that mathematical link to the universe. In that lies the answer. And that’s exactly what I went looking for 35 years ago. It’s a stupid simple question. What is 0, and what is 1, in relation to the universe? It is the idea of something versus nothing that binds us to math, because all math can be done within the space of 0 and 1.
0 and 1 is a linear problem, or more appropriately, a 1dimensional problem. We have 3 1dimensional problems working in tandem. Motion, Scale, and Time. Scale dictates both time and motion.
The universe cannot and does not do random. Math could not work in a random space of 0 and 1. Math needs a 0, and a 1, and all the linear variables in between, because the universe is all the variables that lie between. It cannot be any other way.
So, I must ask, does this, “infinity – a number greater than any assignable or countable number”, make sense to the universe?
You can only come to one conclusion objectively. No. It is wrong.
If that can be so wrong for so long, what else are we missing?
3D space.
Length, width and height, are an invention of man. It helped us build pyramids and houses. Dimension in mathematics does not imply physical structure. It only requires a minimum and maximum value of something, whatever that something is. We inserted scale into space, defining it by its length width and weight. We labeled it 3D space erroneously. And then Einstein dropped time on top, giving us a 4D universe. Nope, you can’t do that, because space is 1 thing, not 3 things. The fact that we see it as 3D is a function of time and motion, and together, all 3 dimensions of, space, time and motion, form 3D mass energy. That’s what we see and experience. What gives space dimensions is the same thing that gives matter dimensions, space, time, and motion. It is the only logical conclusion you come to, objectively.
Everything else, is an invention of mankind.

Slight irrelevant correction.
Aryabhata
Main numeral systems. The most commonly used system of numerals is the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. Two Indian mathematicians are credited with developing it. Aryabhata of Kusumapura developed the placevalue notation in the 5th century and a century later Brahmagupta introduced the symbol for zero.
Let’s just say, numbering has been around since humans could associated fingers to things and preform basic math. Once a more uniform universal numbering system was developed around the 5th century, and was adopted globally, things changed.


I think it’s time to shatter the myth and mystique of dimension.
I’ve come realize something very fundamental. No one knows what the hell dimension means. Not even me entirely until this very moment. It’s been staring at us forever, but I do think we ever appreciated the depth of the mathematical truth.
I know that statement is true, because for years I’ve been asking the question. How do we define dimension? I felt stupid asking the question, because I thought it was something I should just know. String theory readily works in multiple dimensions. Quantum physics talks regularly about hidden dimensions and parallel universe. We have erroneously (and arguably I suppose) viewed space as 3D. I honestly did feel stupid asking the question. To my surprise, no one seemed to be able to answer the question coherently. And I thought I was the one having the issue, so I stopped asking.
There is no definition of what constitutes dimension in physics anywhere.
What is dimension?
A dimension mathematically only represents one thing. It’s a finite line segment. On one end of the line, we have a minimum state, and on the other end, we have a maximum state.
For example:
0————————–1
That’s a mathematical dimension. Simple enough to understand.
There are 3 fundamental dimensions that make up the universe, space, time, and motion, and those dimensions subdivide into separate, or equal but opposite dimensions.
For the total universe, I inserted space into the middle. Space can either exist, or not exist. If either state existed on its own, that state would be absolute. There would be nothing else. That’s not what we observe, because we exist.
1–>–space–>–0
Space is the top dimension, because it represents the material universe. Everything depends on space to exist. For a universe to exist within space, space needs to do something.
Space needs mass for a universe to exist, so I added expansion and contraction.
1–>–contraction–>–0 (matter)
1–<–expansion–<–0 (space we traverse)
Mass alone doesn’t mean anything without energy, so we need to add motion:
0–>–acceleration–>–1 (matter)
0–<–deceleration–<–1 (space we traverse)
Then we must be able to perceive everything, so we insert time.
1–>–time fast–>–0 (matter)
1–<–time slow–<–0 (space we traverse)
That could be considered 6 dimensions out of 1. These are the base fundamental dimensions that make up our reality. None of these can either be created nor destroyed. They are what drives existence.
We can say the universe is 3D, but really, even that’s probably wrong in hindsight.
The universe is an amalgamation of a multitude of sub dimensions, all subdivided from the base set. Each one of those subdimensions becomes important in understand the universe, from the physical world, to the cognitive world, to the emotion world, to the biological world, etc. The list could go on and on, depending on what it is we’re trying to understand. Dimensions are the variables in the problem. Understanding the state of each dimension helps us solve problems.
For example:
1–>–cold–>–0
1–<–hot–<–0
1–>–short–>–0
1–<–long–<–0
1–>–uncertainty–>–0
1–<–certainty–<–0
1–>–entropy–>–0
1–<–negentropy–<–0
1–>–compress–>–0
1–<–decompress–<–0
We could go on categorizing difference dimensions from this point, into things like, cognitive dimensions, emotional dimensions, physical dimensions, material dimensions, perceptual dimensions, etc., etc.
I must question uncertainty as a principle in quantum mechanics. That’s more of a cognitive or emotional dimension, not really a physical property. It’s a contradiction in terms as a principle. Are we absolutely certain we are absolutely uncertain? It seems a little unproductive to me. The tail wagging the dog. A circular argument.
Another thing I notice is that these subdimensions have an orientation. And they should.
It’s ironic, because I can’t even see length, width, or height, as meaningful dimension. Short/long pretty much defines all of them. How we put multiple lengths together in a math problem is what becomes important in understanding the problem. Space isn’t really 3D, it’s 1D, but it has scale due to expansion and contraction. That’s what defines as something tangible. And with an arbitrary length, width and height, we can perceive what that scale means in relationship to something else. Its scale can define density, or its motion can define temperature, etc. There is a lot of facets to subdimensions.
This is a new line of thought for me, so I’m still sorting it out in my mind.
But it makes perfect dense. We’re multi subdimensional beings in a multi subdimensional universe derived from space, time and motion.

–>– and –<– are intended as a direction of flow or motion. Not greater than or less than.
And as always, I spotted several grammatical errors after the fact.

Hidden dimensions?
I don’t think that’s a legitimate term in science. There could be dimensions we aren’t aware of yet, or ones that haven’t been defined, but they wouldn’t be “hidden dimensions” necessarily. Out of range maybe. Everything is a derivative of space, which is 1dimensional. The only thing we don’t know is how far out that line extends. If the universe is a series of waves, and I’m not saying it is or isn’t, with a universe existing within each wave, they wouldn’t be hidden per se, and they most certainly wouldn’t be any different from our own universal wave. To understand one wave is to understand all the others. The universe is a linear problem. There’s only so many things that can occur mathematically within a line. Additional relative universes maybe, but not hidden dimensions. It adds too much mystique to the problems in science. Great for science fiction, but not so great for science. In my humble opinion. We need to focus on the dimensions we can identify within our own universe.


Whenever someone breaks down something fundamentally understood, it’s sure to meet resistance. I understand. Consensus forces us into a direction and it’s hard to convince anyone to turn around and head the other way. Right or wrong isn’t applicable. It reminds me of that psychological experiment, where they sat about 7 people down in room, with 1 being the subject of the experiment, and the others taking part in the experiment. The presenter showed everyone a set of lines, and everyone had to pick which one was the longest publicly. You could see the look of distress on the subjects face when he naturally followed the consensus and picked a shorter line, because everyone else did. He was always last to pick if I recall. Group think is a powerful influence on individuals.
There’s no way to say this delicately, but we’ve been wrong about 3D space since the days of Einstein, and probably long before that. Even Einstein missed it. Einstein even added the 4th dimension of time on top of a flawed understanding of 3D space which rocked physics to its core. We’re still reeling from that added dimension. He made it 4D spacetime, which we’re apparently traveling through. I’ve never met anyone that agrees with it, privately. In the mainstream, it is fully alive. Mainstream physics is like the cloud. It doesn’t really exist in any particular location. The idea of mainstream physics is an influence.
3D space, as far as its physical dimensions go, doesn’t even make sense when you really think about it. Length, width, and height, are labels for a 1demensional line. How you rotate that “3D” object changes the meaning of the labels. And for a perfectly square box, label assignment is entirely arbitrary. Length is an arbitrary term, which is based on an arbitrary measuring system, which is based on an arbitrary line segment of matter made up of trillions of random atoms. A meter for example, only means something to us, compared to other things that mean something to us.
Space is one thing, not 3 things built on dimensions of, length x length x length. Space either exists, or it doesn’t. That’s a 1dimensional problem.
How it is perceived is a multidimensional problem, so if we’re going to be completely objective, how it is perceived requires hundreds, or even thousands of dimensions to define it, because everything that physically exists is derived from space. Picking 3 identical dimensions of length was arbitrary. 3D as is the currently implied meaning does not define space.
Space is 1 dimensional. How we choose to perceive space requires countless dimensions.
There was a scene in the movie, Moneyball, where the owner of the Boston Red Sox says, “The first guy through the fence always gets bloodied.” Paraphrasing a little. Basically he was saying, no one likes change, because it threatens the way they do things. It threatens their way of life. Great movie by the way. Highly recommend it.

Another thought occurred to me.
I think most people can agree motion is relative. That was pretty good insight by Einstein.
However…
I consider mass a relative condition, just like motion. What mass is depends on its motion, making the scale of mass a relative state. I propose we (matter) are contracting inward, while the space we traverse expands outward. That’s the gist of what I’m trying to explain.
So…
If the general consensus is that matter/motion is true, then by default, matter is a relative state, because motion cannot exist with matter, and matter cannot exist without motion, and energy does not exist without matter in motion. Matter meaning mass.
Of course I extended the concept to space, claiming space itself has mass, because the space we traverse can only exist with motion, exactly like matter. No motion, no energy, no mass, no matter, no space to traverse. Motion is fundamental to the entire universe, because motion and space are an inseparable state of the entire universe. Matter/Motion – Space/Motion.

Gravity.
I’ve always liked this contracting relative mass theory, because it explains so much of the universe around us and is a very simple process and relatively easy to wrap your brain around. It’s the way it should be. Logical. No paradoxes. Mechanical. Simple to follow. The universe should not be as complicated as we make it out to be, because everything is a derivative of space. What space is doing becomes highly complex when viewed from our relative perspective, if you want to build something, like a combustion engine, or nuclear reactor. That’s not what I ever set out to do. I wanted a general understanding of how it all works.
Gravity would look pretty much like Einstein’s dimpled universe, or rubber sheet, but the process needs to be set in motion. As matter contracts inward it pulls a void behind it, where the expanding mass of space gets pulled in to fill the void left behind. This creates an inverse wave in the mass of space, like a tsunami that never breaks, surrounding all matter. This is also what creates the vacuum of space, because the collapsing matter is gently tugging at the steady vacuum in the space we traverse. These dimples that are being created are low pressure or high vacuum points relative to the surrounding mass of space, and vacuum wants to be evenly distributed, naturally.
Gravity is caused by the collapse of matter. Contraction is the action causing a reaction in the mass of space, causing gravity. It creates a downhill effect in the mass of space, which matter falls into at the inverse square.
Or another way to look at it, steady mass loss creates gravity.
Have you ever wondered how something like space, with 0 density in a motionless state, can transform into something like a diamond? Take two points in space and set them in motion inward. Technically, they would always be moving away from each other, held loosely together by the forces of nature. Gravity, nuclearweak, nuclearstrong, magnetism, etc. But in that bond, they’re both trying to move away from each other as they accelerate inward at an everincreasing rate. Relative to one another they appear constant in scale, as measured in a perfectly controlled vacuum. You can’t see what’s really happening because of relativity.
Classical mechanics is the science of 1>C, where Quantum Mechanics is the study of C>0. But classical mechanics stopped motion at C, and Quantum Mechanics stopped scale at a Plank Length. They’ve boxed themselves in to a finite limit far short of what’s really going on. Plank is a relative scale, and C is relative motion. You must always use the logical limits of both, which are 0 and 1.
What they’ve done works in defining a relative perspective of the universe, but perspective isn’t nature, it’s how we perceive nature. Nature would not make sense if we weren’t bound to a relative perspective. So, in that regard, it works fine for 99% of the things we want to build, or in sending someone to the moon, or in understanding basic motion from the outside as we perceive it. But in understanding the underlying reality it can’t work. The universe cannot be backward engineered using relative constants. That’s why we aren’t getting anywhere, and that’s why there’s a theory for every scientist that ever lived, all of them slightly different. There is no such thing as quantum gravity. There’s gravity. Yes, there’s gravity within gravity within gravity, which is just gravity at ever smaller and faster scales as we drill down inside the standard model, but it’s all one thing. Gravity. One process can define them all. Contraction.
Yes, you can divide something in half forever, but you can’t cut something in half forever. That’s an Earth perspective. There is a limit. Water for example can only be divided until you’re left with two H20 atoms. That’s as far down as water can be divided. Anything more and it is no longer water. But you could divide the scale of water down forever (probably not forever technically), as long as your perspective of water never changed.
Looks are deceiving.

When I really give this a little more thought, I think gravity itself might be matter. The universe could simply be positive and negative vacuum. And that’s it.

Of course that has to be the answer. An expanding vacuum state (positive vacuum energy) against a contracting vacuum state (negative vacuum energy). What else could motionless space do? The vacuum state ripples in waves.

The outer wall of matter is the transition point between expansion and contraction. The outer wall of the universe is the transition point between vacuum and no vacuum. The universe just keeps expanding, pulling itself outward into the calm. Simple.


Exactly as Steven Hawking’s once pondered. All the positive (vacuum) energy + all the negative (vacuum) energy = 0 (motion) energy.
I kept isolating matter into a unique system, and then contracted it down as something different from the vacuum of space. I could never figure out what divided matter from space. I was treating it as an object with a defined or hard edge derived from space somehow.


How could we have missed that for so long?
The entire universe is nothing but a vacuum. Of course it is!
Think about it. What do we see when we peek inside an atom? 98% space, and 2 % something else. That 2% something else is the state between opposing vacuums, and that space, vacuum.
Imagine a clear globe. On the inside is space, and on the outside is space, and both are the exact same state. Call it motionless space with a value of 1.
Now imagine that globe is expanding. The vacuum starts to rise inside the globe, but there is nowhere for that vacuum energy to go as it expands out, so the vacuum turns in on itself and becomes matter, contracting in response to the expansion. Contraction is the equal and opposite reaction to expansion. Contracting vacuum is matter, and expanding vacuum is space.
All vacuums need to be sealed. It’s basic mechanics 101, and I’m not talking physics, I’m talking simple engineering mechanics. Nuts and bolts and cogs and gears. That motionless space surrounding the universe is that seal. It’s a variable seal. Space is absolutely perfect in form and structure. If it expands, it has to contract in response. There is nothing else it can do, because space occupies 100% of the entire universe. It must collapse, and shatter off into countless particles, all being drawn into the center.
Vacuum is the perfect way to transfer energy from one state to the other. Vacuum is more or less absorbent, for lack of a better term.
We’ve been calling space a vacuum for decades. Scientists assumed that was simply a property of space, but something has to cause a vacuum. Expansion is what causes vacuum.
If you want to use the literary meaning of infinity to describe space as endless, fine. The mathematical version, no. It’s wrong. The state surrounding the universe is 1. Motionless space is the absolute perfect vacuum seal. We expand into it giving the universe that we experience dimension. Outside the universe it’s a single end point.
If the CNPS really wants to advance a theory, this is it. If you want to keep dabbling in tired light, and an infinite universe, and aether, etc, you will find yourselves on the wrong side of scientific discovery. Beyond all reasonable doubt, this is correct. This is what we observe the universe to be, a vacuum. Fits every observation as outlined in this post.
I am not the guy to advance a formal theory. For me, this is as good as it gets. I don’t play in that sandbox. You guys have skills I do not possess. This is as far as I can take it.
Someone is going to figure this out within the next few years. Seldom does anyone come up with an idea that isn’t already moving forward, or going to be advanced by someone else.
This will take down Big Bang, and much of Einstein. This will turn physics on its head. Relativity is the physics of perception.
Quantum physics is even wrong. Think about it. Planck set a limit of scale for energy at the Planck length. They think that is the smallest possible quanta of energy. Energy though, doesn’t really exist. Energy is motion, as Glenn Borchardt claims, and mass is space in motion. Space occupies 100% of the universe, and motion is what space does. All the space that we experience has to be in motion, both space, and matter. The Planck length is a relative limit of what matter can be at any given moment in time. It’s a limit of perception, just like relativity. There is an endless amount of space between a Plank length and 0. Mathematically, that is absolutely true. Motion cannot be defined by a Planck length, and neither can space.
Science is looking at the universe from a perfectly controlled vacuum state in a laboratory. They are looking at matter as one thing, and space as another thing. They are the same thing acting in an equal but opposite manner.
We’re little vacuums forever collapsing inward in response to expansion.
I don’t know what else to say. This is the answer we’ve all been looking for. It’s correct.

Since “Infinity” seemed to play a prominent role in a few recent CNPS presentations, it’s good that a forum discussion has been opened on that topic. Greg Volk has long been a strong advocate for making sure that terminology is used correctly and that when people discuss a topic, they agree on the key terminology, so that they are not talking at cross purposes. Throughout the ages, infinity was discussed by philosophers and mathematicians. The formal definition of “infinity” as an abstract math construct was popularized by Georg Cantor at the end of the 19th century and is the definition accepted by Academia. Basically, it says that “infinity is greater than any integer”. Admittedly, “infinity” can be used in an informal, watered down, colloquial way such as meaning “boundless”, “endless” or “an extremely large number of something”. However, I will stick with the formal, academic meaning of infinity as an abstract math construct.
As such, by definition, “infinity” is not a valid construct for describing the real, physical world. I used to think, in an offhand way, that “time” might the one exception and might be considered “infinite”, however, I later realized that view was doubly invalid. However, if one uses “infinity” in the informal, colloquial sense, then the terms “infinity” can be used in physics, but one must make clear exactly what one’s personal use of the term means and that one is NOT using the formal academic definition of “infinity”.
I see below that Andy has thought about this topic for many years, indeed decades, and has thought about it deeply. If I misrepresent him, Andy can correct me. However, it seems to me that Andy came to the same conclusion that I did, namely, one cannot use the formal definition of “infinity” and apply it to the physical world. In fact, he says that “infinity” is so inherently meaningless for the physical world, that it must be redefined for use in physics. So his redefinition of “infinity’ is along the lines of “infinity” means “an extremely large number of something”, but Andy provides much more rigor than that colloquial phrase. I have suggested to Andy that it might be clearer if he gave his “new” construct a new name rather than redefining “infinity”.
However, before putting the above online, I thought it prudent to ask Dennis Allen, a retired math professor and author of “The Reality Oriented Mathematician”, if he thought “infinity” was applicable to physics and his view was 100% in sync with my view. Further, I spoke with a most respected member of the CNPS and that person agreed with my view as well.
So, as critical thinkers, we must be sure to give proper analysis to this topic regardless of how firmly bound to one view or another we may be AND we must be clear about the meaning of the term “infinity” that we are using.
Incidentally, as far as I have found, the term “infinitesimal” is defined in terms like:
Adjective: extremely small (e.g., nanoscopic, barely perceptible, invisible to the naked eye
OR
Noun (MATHEMATICS) : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.
Thus, unless one is using the term “infinitesimal” with some other definition, “infinitesimal” is unrelated to the formal meaning of “infinity”.

Hello, Andy,
I’m new to this forum and I haven’t read all of this thread yet, but I noticed you treated space as if it was an object that could move, and contract, and not as a virtual thing/concept. How did you arrive at this assumption? I would like if you could clarify whether you are referring to the same concept as I do with that word.
To me, space, like time, is not a physical object. Rather, everything in existence has a location. Locations are not physical objects, but rather properties thereof. Space is merely the generalisation of all possible locations. It is a generalisation of properties, and not an object itself. This is why it has to be infinite, because the property of location is not conceptually limited to any range of (absolute) values.
To me, what you are referring to as space does seem more like something physical that permeates all of what I refer to as space, like a field, which assigns every part of space (as I mean it) a state of vacuum or matter (I’m oversimplifying things here for brevity), or maybe something which could be called an aether (although I am in no way familiar with other theories that use this name) which can take the form of vacuum or matter. I don’t think space (as I understand it) can move or stretch or contract, as it is nothing more than a coordinate system. However, if there is a field that permeates all of space, that should be able to move, contract, etc.
Log in to reply.