Activity Feed Forums New Models Infinity Reply To: Infinity

  • Andy

    Member
    November 25, 2020 at 6:14 pm

    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 like-minded 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 third-party 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 non-absolute, meaning it can be anything mathematically tangible or realistic within our universe. Non-absolute 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 long-standing 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 non-absolute 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?

X