[Andy]

First, it’s important to note that I am not a scientist or physicist. I have no math skills and no training in the field. Frankly, I’ve never stepped foot in physics classroom, nor read a theory cover to cover. Glenn Borchardt’s, Scientific Worldview, is the only science book I’ve read (on audio) cover to cover.

I have been doing this for the better part of my life, and I see value in it. I see truths. Without going into the processes I have used the past 35+ years, my methods are completely unconventional, but they work for me. I’m using the only tool I have in my toolbox, my brain.

So, whatever value you might gain from my input is not known, if any.

The first thing to do is toss in the garbage nearly everything we think we know about the universe. Then wheel up a new blackboard and grab a fresh piece of chalk in your right hand, and an eraser in your left. If you’re left-handed, well, you know what to do.

As I see it, science is stuck in the middle looking out. There are two very specific and distinct directions they are looking for answers, inward and outward. That alone is a problem, because, 0 < ∞ < 1. They cannot get to the two ends from the middle. It is physically impossible. The ultimate answer as to what is going on is perpetually out of reach. As a result, we assume the middle holds the key in understanding the ends. It does not. It cannot.

Science does not look for answers, believe it or not, because all the answers already exist. Once you know an answer it’s usually very simple to understand. As the old sayings go, hindsight is 20/20, or Monday morning quarter backing. Everyone in the scientific community and the world at large, assumes complexity, but simplicity rules the universe. Identifying the problem is the hard part.

Like I said though, science does not look for answers. Science is looking for the problem that led to the existing answers. If they can do that science can produce something useful, whether it’s some cool new invention, or publishing an elaborate theory for peer review. Either way, both signify an inherent value to individuals and companies working the problem. That value is fame and fortune at various levels of compensation, depending on the significance of either.

That’s where cooperation and collaboration break down. Science is not designed for cooperation or collaboration underneath it’s altruistic facade. Scientists work in guarded secrecy until they develop a useful and repeatable outcome or elaborate theories. And they probably either patent or copyright anything they develop before going public for protection. Going public is an epic moment. All eyes are on the creators. Boom or bust?

That’s how real science works. It’s driven by grants, donations, fame, products, and fortune. All valuable commodities worthy of protection. And there’s nothing wrong with that on many levels. Money is how we survive.

It does make the problems exponentially more complicated to solve though, and that’s the rub. Science works in isolation.

As frustrating as it may be at times, a lack of cooperation or collaboration is perfectly normal human behavior. It is to be expected, unfortunately.

I started from the opposite ends, figuring that would require the least math and physics. I’ve been slowly working my way to the middle for the past 35+ years. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose. This is not my day job. I’ve worked in the printing industry my entire life for the most part. I wouldn’t even know how to publish anything, let alone get it into an acceptable format for review. It would be laughable, I’m sure.

There was a handful of questions I had when I started. What are we made of? What animates everything? Why is everything in motion? What is motion? How big is the universe? What is energy?

The first thing to understand is that our existence is absolute. And that is paramount to our understanding of the universe. There is no such thing as positive and negative. Those things only exist in our minds. They’re nothing more than labels to identify opposing conditions. We can use positive and negative in communication to keep track of various conditions, but it’s not real. It is conceptual.

Next, throw out energy. It’s not a real thing. That’s how we experience and harness space and motion. We can talk energy for expediency, because it’s useful to do so in science. It’s a form of communication. But know that it’s not a physical reality. We are not made of energy. Energy is a label or concept.

Next, throw out 3-D. The universe is not 3-dimesional. It’s made up of hundreds of thousands of subdimension intersecting into states of reality. Reality being how we define the world around us. They’re all relevant. Some are more relevant than others in defining our physical reality. There is one physical dimension that defines existence, space. That’s a real dimension and a real physical ingredient. And there is one active dimension, motion. It too is a physically real dimension of reality. This is where a dimension of energy and a dimension of time is derived. They don’t exist physically; they are conceptual in nature. Energy is a way to express multiple intersecting dimensions in a real way. We can say everything is made of energy, but only in so far as, everything is made from a physical dimension of space in motion and will exist for a length of time. Time being a derivative of absolute motion, and motion being a derivative of absolute space.

There is an equivalency between positive and negative energy.

Thanks to Stephen Hawking I see that now.

He claimed that if you took the sum of all positive and negative energy, you end up with nothing, or 0. What Stephen Hawking didn’t understand, as no one else does apparently, our universe, and everything in it, is absolute. The sum of all energy does not equal 0, it equals [1]. Stephen Hawking was wrong, but it was legitimate reasoning.

e=.5 (half the energy in the universe)

[-e] + [+e] = [1]

And there is no difference between either form of energy.

[-e] – [+e] = [0]

And finally, we can draw a conclusion about energy.

[-e] = [+e]

There is physically no difference between the two states of energy, so one form of energy transforms into the other form of energy. How could there be a difference? It’s all derived from [1] thing.

So, the law of physics that states energy cannot be created or destroyed makes perfect sense now.

What could that [1] possibly represent?

Through deductive reasoning, all that remains is, Space, logically.

Space is the only physical ingredient remaining to build a universe. Energy cannot exist physically.

[0] would be the absence of space. That is an illogical condition. Space must exist, and that’s why we must exist. There is nothing else remaining logically.

We cannot think in terms of empty space. That’s false reasoning. It’s like calling a rock empty. Space itself is a thing. The only thing. A perfect continuous unbreakable but malleable object. Space defines existence. Space transforms into a comprehensible universe made of itself in various states.

I am not wrong, I am uncredentialed and insignificant to the process of science. There is no value in my solution or insight.

I can explain the universe all the way down to the potential aether, but certainty breaks down in my reasoning the closer I get to the middle. The ends are relatively easy to understand, because the problems are stupid simple. So simple in fact, that they would most likely be rejected by the scientific community as nonsense. All I can say to that is, prove it. The math is flawless. It’s as easy as 1+1=2. And it should be if you value the laws of physics. If we reverse entropy to its fundamental state, [1] should be the predictable result. Our universe is derived from fractions of the whole. Lots and lots of little pieces all connected to the whole.

I’ll leave it at this for now…

If you don’t want me to participate further, I understand.

[Andy]

One last point I’d like to add that seems relevant. Collaboration dilutes compensation, and compensation spawns innovation. Sort of a contradictory state of science. Collaboration by its nature only occurs out of necessity, typically. Collaboration is generally limited in extent due to the economics of a given problem.

[John-Erik]

Andy

Thanks for very interesting view points in philosophy about we humans and scientists. These ideas seems very important to me. I sometimes read an article about “The resistance amongst scientists to making scientific discoveries”. Have you read it? I think the explanation is that we are afraid of giving up old ideas and we are not so much resistant to new ideas. Or?

Your contribution was very interesting although you did not say so much about physics.

With best regards from ________________ John-Erik

[Andy]

No, I hadn’t read it.

I was watching some geese that had landed in my backyard. They had about 8 babies. One of the babies had an injury. I was impressed how the geese were taking care of it for a couple of weeks. Until one day they left it behind to fend for itself. Not sure what happened to it ultimately, but I’m guessing a Fox ate it. There’s safety in numbers.

Human’s are animals. Like the geese we gather in groups. Humans are bit more socially complex due to our ability to communicate and share ideology. For geese it’s very simply fight or flight ideology. The wounded baby was putting the flock at risk, because it attracts predators. They left it to die.

Ideology is what binds us together in groups. We aren’t afraid to give up old ideas, we’re down right terrified. No one willingly diverges from the group ideology without an exit strategy. Mostly anyway. Maybe they convince a portion of the group that their ideology is better or more right, and then they break off. Their has to be something in it for them that benefits themselves and the group. Our baser instincts bind us together. Right or wrong has almost no relevance. The pillars of physics has made our lives exponentially better, but it really doesn’t say much about the universe. No one gives a shit, because the safer group is the bigger group.

If you found a way to harness your ideas and build a device to defy gravity based on those ideas, then you have something of value to build on and create a new group. Until then, there is safety in numbers. Right or wrong does not apply. The group they’re in is doing fine.

Diverge from the group and parish.

Science is ruthless…

[John-Erik]

I have put my article also my CNPS blog:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/

JoP

[John-Erik]

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/

I try again

[Andy]

“Your contribution was very interesting although you did not say so much about physics.”

Interesting…

Actually, I said a whole lot in a condensed space. Yes, there was an abundance of philosophy in the context, but its all relevant to progress.

I suggested the universe was absolute. That’s not only a big leap from conventional ideology, it’s a whole new paradigm if you look closely at what I said in the final few paragraphs.

[-e] + [+e] = [1]

[-e] – [+e] = [0]

[0] < ∞ < [1]

The maximum state of the universe is [1]. The minimum state of the universe is [0]. The universe we exist in is ∞.

What does that say about our current understanding of infinity?

It’s completely wrong.

The universe is not physically endless in extent, it is physically changing in extent from two ends over time. It’s net change is [0].

I read an article on Einstein’s lost Theory, which was basically GR without a big bang.

Here’s a link to the article and a little clip for me to expand on.

“But his math was better than he wanted to
believe — his equations told him that the universe could not stay
static: It had to either expand or contract. Einstein chose to ignore what his mathematics was telling him.”

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang

I consider this a key divergence in human reasoning and our quest for real answers. Back then the common dogma was steady state. His math appeared to contradict the accepted beliefs of the time, so he added lambda to force the universe into a steady state. Then Hubble came along with an observation indicating the universe was expanding. Had Einstein not tried to force his math to fit the accepted dogma, he could have made a prediction. He was mad at himself apparently. Still, that is somewhat deceiving and inaccurate. Einstein only had a 50/50 chance of making a prediction, because his math clearly stated there was no preference to expansion or contraction. Predicting expansion would have been a best guess in matching the observation, nothing more. It would have been luck.

And that’s where science took a hard left into theology and the Big Bang.

The assumption was that the universe had to expand OR contract. It couldn’t do both.

My independent reasoning has led me to a different conclusion. Our universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously for a net gain of [0]. That’s what it does, giving us the illusion of a beginning and end. Everything we observe definitely had a beginning, and everything we observe will definitely come to an end. That’s true, but the total universe will happily soldier on without us, endlessly expanding and contracting at the same time.

Matter contracts, space expands.

Matter is already traveling at C inwards, and space is expanding outwards at C in the opposite direction. e=mc^2. Energy doesn’t exist without motion.

We don’t necessarily move as we think we do, we alter course from our existing motion. And that’s what mass is all about. Lateral motion is converting contracting energy into expansive energy. Any direction we move laterally occurs in the outward direction. The more at rest we appear the more inward we are moving. We don’t create motion, we exploit motion inherent in the process.

Energy is derived from the motion of space. The entire universe is moving in opposite directions. I suspect the creation of matter occurs on the outer perimeter, then cascades inward at a constant rate. The dissipation of energy occurs at the bottom end, deep inside matter. The universe is just continually recycling itself in a loop.

Is there aether? Probably. Little tiny particles transforming into expansive energy.

The universe is in constant motion.

from 1—>0, and from 0—>1. Trading places more or less.

Net result, 0 change. We ride a wave of creation down to 0.

Time expands and contracts with motion.

The finite universe which will never occur, or [1] space, represents [1] time, [1] motion, [1] energy. It’s a frozen state of the universe. If it ever reached that point I seriously doubt it could ever change. It will have reached a finite maximum state or equilibrium of force. For whatever reason, [1] is an unstable state. It cannot sustain. And that’s why we’re here.

But, right or wrong doesn’t matter a whole lot, does it?

I have no value to bring o the table.

[John-Erik]

Andy

…right or wrong does not matter…

Yes, truth in nature is disregarded in favour of politically correctness in relation to group. This explains why hundreds of years old mistakes can survive in physics and how people can get fired from work or their thesis refuted for being critical to Einstein’s work.

However, there are exceptions. I have got 3 articles excepted by PHYSICS ESSAYS. An article was refuted by PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, with the motivation that it was based on ideas hundreds of years ago. They did not even see that these ideas actually were refuted instead, although still accepted to day.

Yes, humans are animals living in herds.

With best regards from ______________ John-Erik

[Andy]

Group think is an interesting topic. COVID was an amazing display of group think. We kept hearing, follow the science. My question was always, which science are we following? Economics? Biology? Medical? Pharmaceutical? Political? Physics?

We seemed to be following whatever science fit the narrative of the day, because there was no such thing as COVID science. That’s going to take years to figure out.

[John-Erik]

Andy

Yes, group thinking is interesting. However, it is problematic also since scientific discovery is done by solitary individuals – but spreading the result demands a group.

From _______________ John-Erik

[Andy]

Everything we use to investigate the universe is matter based. There is no way around it. A meter for example, is based on an arbitrary length of platinum. Even converting it to light we’re still using matter to define an arbitrary length.

Actual velocity of anything is unknowable. We can’t even know for sure if the speed of light is constant.

Suppose matter was contracting and the speed of light changing at the same rate universally. Everything would appear static and unchanging. Light would appear constant. A meter would always look like a meter. At the same time, imagine galaxies weren’t moving much laterally. They’re pretty much in the same spot they were millions, or even billions of years ago, sans any local gravitational attraction to each other.

What we would see is expansion when looking at distant galaxies, although we would be oblivious to the reasons. We would assume inflation as the most expedient explanation. Then we’d start reversing inflation to central point of origin and assume the universe exploded into existence.

The idea of contraction is sort of a misnomer in my view. It’s not really the right way to look at it, but it’s easier to explain as contraction. Contraction implies an external or internal force acting upon something making it contract. I’m not suggesting any force is required in the process.

The physical universe that we are immersed in is only 1-dimension. Space. Motion gives it a 2^nd dimension, and time gives it a 3rd dimension. These are tightly bound and inseparable dimensions. Space without motion is dimensionless. Time without motion is meaningless.

We have been defining space as 3-dimensional for centuries. And I have to question that concept, because it literally makes no sense the more I’ve thought about it. Interestingly, I have asked the meaning of dimension many many times over the years. How do we define what a dimension is? You’d think this would be a very simple answer to ask well educated people that are well versed in science and physics. To my surprise, I have never gotten a straight answer. It’s appears subjective with questionable interpretations. I think this is simply a case of knowledge through osmosis that never gets questioned. Of course the universe is 3D, right? I think it’s wrong.

When we say space is built on 3 dimensions, we’re defining 3 individual and unique dimensions of, Length, Width, and Height. What I’ve struggled to understand is that Width and Height are identical in meaning to length. So, 3D is actually length1 x length2 x length3. That’s not 3-dimensions, that’s 1-dimensions perceived as 3 dimensions based on motion and time. Our physical world is not really definable by 3 separate spacial dimensions, is it? It’s 1 single physical dimension of length. That’s reality.

The fundamental spacial universe is 1D.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

What allows us to experience 3D is the variable omnidirectional nature in the orientation of that fundamental 1D spacial reality, and the time it takes to move from A to B.

What this leads me to understand is that a physical dimension of orientation itself is paramount in the construction and understanding of our universe. Orientation cannot be a random derivative of our spacial reality. There has to be an up and down, or more appropriately, an inward and outward, in order to comprehend a direction and motion and time and scales. We need a compass to get anywhere. Orientation is not random.

And that leads to a dimension of scale, which is an amalgamation of all the dimensions that make something physically real to us. Scale is everything. Scale is not random.

I see these flaws in our reasoning, and I then wonder, is this just me not understanding what science is talking about?

Our understanding of the universe feels so contrived and lacking. And if you’re not in the club, you’re not even allowed to question it.

I’ve often thought that if we locked a dozen or so physicist in a room, told them to forget everything they thought they knew about the universe, and come out with a knew paradigm, we’d be better off. We’re so locked into archaic thinking. That’s not the way it works, is it? Scientists work in isolation, independently from one another. Everyone building there own unique paradigm of how some individual property of the universe works, or the entire universe works. There is no collaboration. They expect collaboration to occur at the peer review process, but what we end up with a few more pieces to the puzzle thrown into the heap of mostly useless nonsense. Everyone is right on some level, but I think there’s a lot more wrong mixed in with the right.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Andy.

[Marco]

Hallo @Andy ,

Scrivo in italiano perche’ faccio prima, spero tu riesca a tradurre…

hai fatto un bellissimo discorso, ma come dici tu stesso, hai poca dimestichezza con la fisica e la matematica.

Le idee intuitive di ciascuno, a volte, si scontrano con la REALTA’ e la fisica e la matematica sono proprio quegli strumenti che occorrono per avere conferma o meno delle proprie (o altrui) idee.

Nei discorsi fatti nei post si capisce che non e’ la matematica a essere falsa, ma e’ l’interpretazione che viene data ai risultati che fornisce che puo’ essere falsificata.

La geometria, invecie, non puo’ essere falsificata perche’ non si possono applicare i teoremi di incompletezza di Goedel (qui si va su teoremi di matematica avanzata…) quindi la geometria ha una potenzialita’ superiore alla matematica per spiegare i fenomeni fisici.

La tua interpretazione intuitiva di geometria ti porta a semplificare troppo quella che e’ la realta’ fisica, mescoli le 3 dimensioni ed il tempo senza dargli una rappresentazione univoca e ripetibile e questo porta ad una indeterminazione di fondo nella tua rappresentazione.

Ci sono persone in questo gruppo che hanno alte competenze di matematica e fisica e si scambiano informazioni con un grosso background condiviso, pur essendo dissidenti e non allineati con la scienzah ufficiale.

Per gli altri che NON hanno lo stesso background, possono sembrare discussioni inutili ma solo perche’ non hanno le basi comuni per capire il nocciolo della questione.

Per farti alcuni esempi, la meccanica, fino a Newton e’ condivisa praticamente da tutti, per l’elettromagnetismo si arriva fino all’esperimento di Michaelson-Morley, per la Fisica atomica le divisioni iniziano con Plank…

i background sono molto ampi e superano il 90% di cio’ che si conosce, le differenze sono sul restante 10% o meno…

Se mi permetti vorrei darti 2 informazioni riguardo la geometria (senza entrare nel merito della dimensione temporale):

1) la dimensione minima (con misura NON nulla) dello spazio e’ rappresentata dalla retta che ha dimensione 1 e possimo rappresentare qualsiasi punto su essa in corrispondenza biunivoca con i numeri Reali (R).

La retta non occupa tutto lo spazio e se vogliamo rappresentarlo tutto occorre aumentare le dimensioni.

2) aggiungendo una dimensione (ortogonale per semplicita’) otteniamo lo spazio a 2 dimensioni (una superficie) e questo spazio, non e’ semplicemente l’unione di 1 dimensione + 1 altra dimensione, ma ha caratteristiche ulteriori che non c’erano prima.

ci sono delle nuove grandezze che con 1 dimensione non erano definite:

Una nuova grandezza la chiamiamo “area”,

un’altra grandezza la chiamiamo “angolo”.

Questo spazio a 2 dimensioni e’ in corrispondenza biunivoca con il campo dei numeri Complessi (C =x +i*y).

Se aumentiamo ulteriormente le dimensioni a 3, possiamo trovare (ed e’ definita univocamente) QUELLA dimensione che e’ ortogonale alle 2 definite in precedenza.

Ovviamente le scelte possono essere tante per le dimensioni ortogonali ad ognuna delle singole dimensioni, ma SOLO UNA e’ ortogonale a entrambe: e’ questo caratterizza lo spazio a 3 dimensioni che conosciamo.

Le altre dimensioni che possiamo considerare (compreso il tempo) faranno riferimento a questa “terna” di dimensioni reciprocamente ortogonali.

Non e’ la mia specializzazione, e questa e’ una estrema sintesi di alcuni punti comuni per “addetti a ragionamenti razionali”.

Le critiche sono sempre ammesse, non mi offendo, era per dare un aiuto per comprendere argomenti distanti dalla nostra formazione.

(a me capita in certe discussioni di MQ di capire relativamente poco perche’ mi mancano alcune basi…)

Cordiali saluti

Ing. MM

[Andy]

Your native language works great in the translator! Just do that moving forward. I think it reads better.

And never worry about offending me either.

I’m at work so this is going to be a quick response, but I will elaborate further when I find time.

Where I’ve gone is a precursor to mathematics and geometry. It’s the fundamental universe. Back to square one basically. The meaning of 0 and 1. Not much math or geometry to be had there. I stand as much of a chance figuring that out as anyone else in the world. The problem is, nobody cares much about it. Science has moved on to self interest. They found they could exploit the universe for monetary gain, either through products or information. No one is paying attention.

Go back to what Stephen Hawking said.

(-e) + (+e) = 0

Now go back to what I’m suggesting, that our universe is absolute.

[-e] + [+e] = [1]

[1] is the fundamental point of existence. Science would consider that POINT empty space. Logically that must be false, because space we exist in is defined by points of matter. A matter-less universe is only equal to itself, relative to itself, and compared to itself, mathematically and geometrically. No matter, no dimension, no comprehensible universe for us to exist within. It is NOT empty space. [1] is a dimensionless point. There is no geometry or math, just pure dumb logic.

Space either exists:

[-e] + [+e] = [1]

Or it doesn’t:

[-e] – [+e] = [0]

Existence is 1-dimensional:

[0] < ∞ < [1]

We exist between the potential for space to be [1] thing, and nothing. It’s a potential that can never be realized because we exist as empirical evidence to that fact.

our universe = ∞

[1] and [0] is where mathematics and geometry begins and ends, which makes sense. Two ends against the middle.

The universe has never began or ended.

Think about it…

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

e = 1/2 the total energy of the universe.

Site wouldn’t let me edit my post.

[Andy]

“Your intuitive interpretation of geometry leads you to oversimplify what physical reality is, you mix the 3 dimensions and time without giving it a unique and repeatable representation and this leads to an underlying uncertainty in your representation.”

Or maybe, just maybe, physical reality isn’t as complicated as we like to imagine it is. Assuming simplicity is no different than assuming complexity. Odds are certainly against me, but entropy increases over time. I’m looking at the universe from the potential starting point, before entropy and looking in. Science is looking backwards in two directions outward through the weeds. They assume complexity because they’re buried in complexity. Because we’re bound to mathematical behavior, we also must be bound to numeric order. The first number from our perspective is 0. That’s the way we think. I’m at rest, then hit the gas and speed to 60mph. The universe though, can’t start at 0. Something cannot come from nothing, it comes from something else. That’s what we observe, and that’s what physics tells us. Energy transforms. Our reality starts with 1 and moves to 0. 0 is the end of the line for states of matter. Our human existence in particular.

If you listen to what people suggest here, energy is motion. e=mc^2 is a motion formula. I consider this a correct interpretation of energy. We are not made of energy. Energy does not exist technically, it is derived from our inherent motion.

A thought just hit me.

We cannot create or destroy energy, according to the laws of physics.

If energy is derived from motion, then this begins to add further evidence to my assertion that motion is inherent in matter. Matter is already traveling at C inward is my basic assertion. Outward motion reduces the inward motion, outward being observed omnidirectional motion. The more at rest, the more inward we move. If we cannot create or destroy energy, then we cannot create or destroy motion either. That means, we can only transform motion through a change of direction, and that’s it. I also assert motion is 1-dimensional, and is only possible in the inward and outward direction, because that is the way the universe is oriented. We are derived from 1-dimension, not 3D. 3D space is how we perceive reality, not necessarily the underlying physical reality.

This is following the laws of physics.

[Marco]

Hallo @Andy ,

your logic is impeccable, but for motion, particels need at least 2 dimensions.

(I write this also for me, for review)

Motion in 1D is allowed (without collisions) only if all element move at the same velocity:

we can’t swap no element with another (without overlap), there is no degrees of freedom,

in 2D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the plane) and in 1 circular (or elliptic) mode around a point in the plane:

we can move the circles freely because if compacted at 60° they release 13.4% of space

and can create a “circle free” space.

in 3D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the space) and in 1 spheric (or elliptic) mode around a point in the space:

we can move the sphere freely, also here 13.4% for every dimension over the first,

with a 25% of “sphere free” space

in 4D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the 4D_sp) and in 1 toroidal (or elliptic) mode around a point in the 4D_sp:

we can move the torus freely, with more then 13.4% for every dimension over the first

= 35% of “torus free” space.

After these, in dimension 7 and 23 the n-spere becames extra compact with a lot of free space…

After said that, I don’t believe in Big Beng theory but in continuity of universe 👍.

Best regards

Ing. MM

[Andy]

Here’s what I know as fact.

If we remove all matter from the universe, we’re left with a geometrically undefinable state. The most we can say about that state geometrically is a point. That’s it.

In our reality, we detect points, one at a time, or on average. We can imagine a 2D geometric shape by connecting points, or we can imagine a 3D geometric shape connecting still more points.

What we can’t do is imagine pointless shapes. We need points for definition.

Everything we see and create is made of points of matter. Material science becomes equally relevant as the shape we’re creating in the real world. We can’t build a bridge in the tropics out of water, for example.

What is it that we’re really seeing?

Our brain is what creates shapes out of countless points. About 7 octillion points for a human being, give or take a few septillion I’m sure. We mentally fill in the blanks and contour the gaps with imaginary lines. The fundamental universe without matter is a single point, geometrically and mathematically. It’s value can only be describes as [1].

We cannot see matter-less space, we see matter. We experience these points of matter through collision. We do not know what they’re made of, but as I suggest, they’re made from dimensionless space.

In the end, I can’t say if geometry is a mental construct, or physical reality. We can certainly build things we interpret physically and visually as geometric shapes, but those shapes are nothing more than an amalgamation of unknown and undefined points of matter. And we know whatever we build will eventually transform into something else long after we’re dead and buried.

[Andy]

“After said that, I don’t believe in Big Beng theory but in continuity of universe”

I give that probability of a Big Bang about a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being a physical reality.

Lets just call it a 0% chance, for simplicity’s sake. 😉

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

I can’t help but consider the possibility that geometry may be describing the human minds computational capability to instantaneously create 3D images out of 1D space, while not actually serving much purpose in describing the fundamental universe.

I think that may apply to all of our inventions in numbering and mathematics. All of what we created numerically and mathematically were invented for commerce and construction, not science. They roughly work at describing nature, but can’t fully describe it. We follow it as if it is the answer to everything, naively. We believe it. The fact is, our math and numbers have also led us to believe we can travel backward in time. We think negative and positive is a physical reality. Absurd.

The universe is not numbers, or math, or geometry. Those things are derivatives of the human imagination.

The universe is never wrong. Every answer it leaves behind for us to ponder was 100% correct, without probability, without consideration for us, or our math, or our numbers, or our geometry, and without fail. The universe never makes a mistake.

As for humans, well, we are prone to believe just about anything, literally.

[Andy]

One of life’s little ironies.

The more rational or logical life behaves, the dumber it’s perceived by human beings. The more irrational and illogical life behaves, the more intelligent it’s perceived by human beings.

I can’t recall seeing an ant dance for no apparent reason, or watching an alligator commit suicide in a fit of depression.

And that’s why I consider AI a questionable possibility. I can’t imagine building something that intentionally or unknowingly churns out absurd answers, for no apparent reason, or believes blue is prettier than green. We tend to heap on more logic and data to artificially simulate human intelligence. That will never work. Human beings aren’t purely logical creatures. We’re quite irrational at times.

Pure logic possesses 0 intelligence.

[John-Erik]

Andy

You do not accept Big Bang.

Can you explain red shift in another way?

From _____________ John-Erik

[Andy]

Yes, I can John. Not sure anyone likes the idea, but it’s the way I see it. May not be easy to wrap the brain around. Took me a while to grasp it. This concept hit me in 2008. It was one of those eureka moments people talk about that washed over me. Rippled over me for the next few months. My level of certainty on this is pretty high, although I have no means to prove it mathematically. It’s well beyond my abilities. I see the machine.

Expansive energy is positive, and contractive energy is negative. The universe is also homogeneous, so its center can be anywhere you’re sitting within it.

Motion is 1-dimensional. It can only occur in two directions, inward or outward, and that’s it. When matter is moving inward it is in a contracting state, and when matter is moving outwards, it is in an expanding state, or a less contracting state. A body appearing at rest is moving inward. Any observed motion occurs in the outward direction. All matter moves inward at C, but any motion in the opposite direction deducts from the inward motion. At rest we gain negative energy, and when we move in the opposite direction, outward, we gain positive energy, or it can be viewed as a deduction in negative energy.

As we move inwards, space between distant galaxies appears to expand. And really, it is gaining distance, but not like we think it is. Distance galaxies aren’t really moving outward and away from each other, they’re moving inward and becoming a little less relevant to each other as they contract. Everything we use to investigate the universe is made from contracting matter. We’re oblivious to the process because everything is relative to each other.

Mass is a point where negative energy is converting to positive energy. Matter is slowly flipping inside out at its core as it contracts. It’s a full change in direction. To go from full inward to full outward motion creates a delay, or resistance to outward motion on the opposite end.

It takes a while to fully wrap your head around the mechanics. Once you see it, you see it.

The universe is split in two halves of the whole. Half the universe is contracting inward, and the other half is expanding outward. It’s not really going anywhere, it’s just rolling in on itself in a wave with a frequency of 1. If that makes sense. I clearly see the mechanics, but it’s difficult to explain, and even harder to believe. I see it though.

[Andy]

I’ll add 1 other little piece of information. Homogeneity in the universe is the absence of dimension. The fundamental universe, [1], is a homogeneous state of existence. Distance, motion, time, orientation, etc., has no meaning. It’s just one thing that exists. A single point geometrically. All the properties of the universe that we experience are a derivative of motion and time. That fundamental homogeneity remains part of our physical reality, but the universe has an orientation to it because of motion and time.

[Andy]

And if you ask me how big the universe is, I’m going to say there is no possible way of knowing. Our view of distance is always changing. There is no physical way to quantify distance in an ever changing reality. Distance is a relative state like everything else. The universe appears a little bigger than it did a moment ago from a contractive standpoint, and it appears a little smaller than it did a moment ago from an expansive standpoint. The rate of change is what’s important to understand, and that I don’t have an answer to either. It might be possible to hone in on that number, but I don’t know. Questions like that are beyond my scope of understanding, and not really of much interest to me. It would be neat to know, but it’s not useful for me to know it. I can’t do anything with that answer. It would probably be useful to the men and women inventing things to help us to better our lives and assure our continued collective survival.

[Andy]

In short John, our galaxy is technically moving away from other galaxies, exactly as we observe. Though, our direction of motion is inward, not outward, and technically we are gaining space between points A to B. However, we haven’t really changed position like we imagine. The entire universe is not expanding outward from the imaginary center. There is some lateral movement towards other galaxies due to gravitation effects. I think our Milkyway is going to eventually collide with Andromeda if I’m not mistaken. But there was never a central point of origin for the entire universe, as in a big bang. There is no inflation going on, and there was most certainly never any “hyper-inflationary” period. It’s a zero sum game. [-e] – [+e] = [0].

[Andy]

Dark Energy is a mythical creature as well. There is only two forms of energy, expansive and contractive. That’s it. Dark Energy is unnecessary in the explanation. I suspect C is variable in the process, and is merely a relative constant. There are no static constants as near as I can imagine. There is a range of motion between 0 and 1, 0 meaning no motion, and 1 meaning instantaneous. But we cannot create motion, only transform whatever motion is inherent in the process at any given moment in time. Whether or not we can travel to some other location in the universe instantaneously is not known to me. That again is beyond my scope of understanding. That’s not what I do. I don’t create things, I just try to understand them. I have no theory for that sort of thing.

[John-Erik]

Andy

Your explanation is complex and hard to understand. I have an explanation that is much simpler.

Ether particles moving in all directions are absorbed to a small extent by matter. So, less number of particles are leaving a body. Therefore, a net ether wind in negative radial direction is caused. This ether wind is the cause of gravity.

This can explain Big Bang as an illusion, since ether wind towards source increases frequency as 1+v/c and ether wind away from observer decreases as 1-v/c. So, total effect is 1-(v/c)^-2. We get a red shift of second order that can explain Big Bang illusion.

THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT IS CAUSED BY ETHER MOTION (NEAR THE OBSERVED OBJECT) – NOT BY MOTION OF BODIES. NO BIG BANG.

We can also explain The Pioneer anomaly. The radial ether wind (from Sun) reduces the 2-way light speed to a lesser extent far away. Increasing 2-way simulates a decreasing speed of the space station. Pioneer effect is an illusion.

THE PIONEER ANOMALY IS CAUSED BY ETHER MOTION (FROM SUN) – NOT BY MOTION OF BODIES. NO PIONEER ANOMALY.

From ___________ John-Erik

[Andy]

I know everyone here is big on ether as a cause of the redshift. Tired light. So many people have tried to advance that idea, but it always seems to fall flat. I can’t really judge it a lot, because there is a lot of way smarter people than myself working that problem. I have to assume they have good reason for rejecting the idea in favor of motion, as you and others may have good reason for rejecting accepted science.

What we do know is that separation of energy at a velocity causes redshift. That’s a scientific fact. They also noticed acceleration in the problem. I can’t imagine why ether density or wind would have anything to do with that anomaly.

Complexity is a relative perspective. We can’t know what we know until we know it. Answers usually tend to be pretty cut and dry once you know them. For me, everything I say is cut and dry. Then again, I’m the one saying it. I have no idea how it reads from the other side.

I could have jumped out of the gate and claimed, we’re moving inward and away from distant galaxies. Inward is a valid direction of motion. That would have been the simple way to explain it. My way also explains mass, motion, energy, time, and other puzzling features of the universe, including homogeneity. It’s a lot to take in all at once. I’ve been working on this for about 15 years.

I think there is an ether most likely. I think the most probable cause of gravity is ether (dimensional) collapse. I also think the ether is most likely responsible for the vacuum in space due to its collapse. Essentially the either is the lowest level of particle existence before their negative contractive energy flips to positive expansive energy. The higher density of particles surrounding bodies generates a higher negative output in the ether.

I am far less confident on this concept.

[Andy]

And the other issues I have trouble wrapping my head around is light. How does it move? Is it a particle or a wave?

I strike a match, and photons come pouring out. Are they accelerating to C? There is nothing in that flame that would allow anyone to assume there was enough energy to accelerate anything to C.

There has never been a sensible explanation for lights movement, just mounds of theory and educated guesses.

So any theory predicting the behavior of light in the ether also has to unambiguously answer the question about lights motion and unambiguously explain what light is. If light is strictly a particle then collisions with other particles would most likely have a far faster and far greater catastrophic impact on the particle than merely shifting wavelength. I don’t think it would make it out of a planet or stars atmosphere. Shooting a bullet into water and that bullet quickly comes to halt.

This is me thinking very simply of course.

I think the wave particle duality is true, based on experimental evidence. Light is a wave and a particle.

If I translate that to what I’m suggesting, it begins to make sense in my mind.

Light is powered by the motion of the universe, propagating as an expansion wave (like an ocean wave) and a contraction wave (particle). Maximum velocity is a relative state. Assume S equals space. So, when S=1, C=0 (particle), the particle immediately snaps back the opposite direction because its over taken by expansion, where S=0, C=1 (wave). And then it snaps back again, and again, and again. It’s rolling with the universal rate of expansion and contraction, flipping back between expansion and contraction. In a contracted state, it’s a particle, in an expanded state it is a wave. That’s the duality problem.

Light moves at the maximum state in both directions. When a maximum state is reached it’s the end of the line in either direction, so the energy is flipping continuously between pure positive energy and pure negative energy. As a particle it’s mass is 0, because C=0. As a wave it’s traveled as far as it can, because S=0. It runs out of energy in either direction, but gets renewed on the flip side.

I’ve often laid this out as:

Particle State: S=1, C=0, T=1

Wave State: S=0, C=1, T=0

When minimum and maximum value is reached on either end of the motion spectrum, things flip positive to negative, or negative to positive.

Light is the middle C of the universe, powered by the inherent motion of the universe from opposite directions. It doesn’t need an external source of energy to power it. It just needs to exist.

[John-Erik]

Andy

…Everything we use to investigate the universe is matter based….

Yes, and the ether is matter based, although in so small parts that we cannot see it. So, we call it dark energy and dark matter and this is in reality the dark ether.

The title is Decontamination of physics. So, it is about time now for you give more concrete and detailed aspects on Decontamination of physics.

From __________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Andy

You talk about ether or velocity. You did not observe that my suggestion is motion of ether instead of matter. Doppler can be caused by motion of ether just as by motion of matter . You have missed that possibility. You said you could not imagine.

Why should you accept the mainstream? Your only argument is that they are brighter than you. That is not a scientific argument.

Perhaps you should try if you can find an error in my idea. That is analysing instead of referencing to mainstream.

From ____________________ John-Erik

[Andy]

I will go back and try to wrap my head around it John.

Try not to get wrapped up on mainstream reference. I grab whatever makes the most sense. Most of the mainstream makes little to no sense, and they seem to be perfectly fine with that, oddly enough. They would even argue that nonsense is perfectly normal for the universe. We’re supposed to accept nonsense as a natural fact of nature. And that’s bizarre, considering they’re using pure logic to manipulate and understand the universe, and then abandoning it when they can’t make sense of it. They may as well claim pink unicorns are driving the universe.

Though, they aren’t always wrong. They just have theories riddled with paradoxes that are perfectly okay with them. The science fiction writers love it, especially time traveling.

I’ve hi-jacked a lot of this thread trying to get to the ether. I think it’s fair for you to know where I’m coming from first. I have an entirely new paradigm in my head. Is it right? Can’t say. Is it wrong? Can’t say. No one can. It’s curiously simple and makes practical sense on a number of levels. There are some things I say that I have a high degree of certainty on, and other things I say a fairly low level of certainty on. Gravity is one of those things, along with ether. I haven’t really gotten there yet. I started on the ends at [0] < ∞ < [1], and I am working my way to the middle. I have a high degree of certainty on the ends. I think it’s proven as much as it can be. [-e] + [+e] = [1]. [-e] – [+e] = [0]. That was the missing piece to my reasoning. The universe begins with pure logic, and evolves into mathematics. Science blew past the ends and went straight to the complex. Gravity. We still don’t have a consensus on it.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Andy.

[John-Erik]

Andy

See the title of this thread. So, commenting should be around Decontamination of… Instead of analysing my theory you are advocating your theory. That is not OK. What do you think about my theory?

From _______________ John-Erik

[Andy]

Understood John.

Respectfully, and sincerely, I interpreted your title as more of a non-specific open forum to discuss whatever, because it is titled, “Decontamination of Physics”, not ether theory. I consider my thoughts on the universe logic based which contradicts mainstream physics. Time travel doesn’t exist in my reasoning. Applying logic more or less decontaminates physics.

My apologies.

I think we’re both starving for some collaboration and feedback, which is pretty much non-existent here, unfortunately.

I’m not clear on ether theory. I need to understand more before I comment. I don’t know where these ether particles come from, why they exist, or why they’re moving. I don’t understand the properties of them. They seem like really small massless photon’s, or neutrino’s.

Anything theorized without mass tends to move at the maximum velocity of C in science, without explanation. They don’t have much gravitational influence, but tend to be influenced by gravity. Which is kind of a contradiction in my mind.