Fundamental Universe Theory
Leave no stone un-turned. Question everything.
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
And one Last Time…
-
And one Last Time…
Since the system crash, I felt it appropriate to make one more post. This is basically a repost from a conversation I am having outside this forum. Although there is going to be some context lost, I think it is one of the better summations of my view. The crux of the discussion revolves around energy, which I suggest doesn’t exist independently of space. It’s more conceptual or mathematical than an independent third party reality. It’s not a free floating entity within our reality as a material agent. To suggest its an independent substance of our material existence is nothing short of magic. Space is all that physically exists, which could be called energy is we chose to do so. Space is a pretty good label, too.
I tend to agree with David. There is way too much emphasis on ether around here. While somewhat interesting, I don’t ultimately see an absolute need for it. But that’s just me I suppose. I haven’t found a need to consider it.
————
The post…
————
There’s definitely going to be some places we don’t align precisely, but it’s not as far off as you might think. The biggest difference lies in the construction material.
You talk about the omelette. We know something broke to make the omelette, and I get that metaphor.
I think we’re in a closed system, but it’s a bit more nuanced than a simple closed system.
I find space to be a remarkable substance and highly misconstrued and underrated or undervalued. In the absence of the universe as we perceive it, space is a perfect solid. It would occupy 100% of existence everywhere at every moment all at once, existing endlessly in all aspects. Its incomprehensible scale, from our insignificant and totally irrelevant perspective, occupies all conceivable levels of existence. It is unbreakable by default, seamless, and perfectly smooth. It cannot be cracked. It is a perfectly unified continuous state. There is no room for anything else to exist within this state, not even nothing. It cannot be removed from or added to itself, or from a physics standpoint it cannot be created nor destroyed.
Motion and distance becomes completely meaningless, because it is exactly the same everywhere all at once. There can be no center, because every conceivable imaginary point would be sitting in the middle of endlessness.
If a state like that is disturbed in any manner, it must, by it s very physical nature, impact the entirety of that state, which would equate to forever, because it literally occupies forever physically.
The issue I always have with science is the assumption of more. Science basically conjures energy from nothing, and uses that conjured substance to create matter and explain every aspect of physics. It’s nothing short of magic or a miracle. And I don’t say this lightly. There is no logical reason to assume something else exists but space.
I can most certainly see why the assumption is being made, but it’s still a leap. A magic hand wave. A conjuring. A perception of physicality.
I think the only assumption that can be made is that the only thing that exists is space.
Has science ever observed energy?
No.
But they assume everything is made from it.
And that leads to further and more convenient assumptions, which takes me back to those ball bearings I mentioned.
Not only does science assume all of these ball bearings of matter are static balls of magnitude and scale made of energy, they also possess a tiny little magic energy battery that lasts forever in the life of a particle. It never runs out of juice. Kick out an electron and you get a free photon traveling across the universe forever, and then another electron takes the place of the one kicked out.
There is nothing in physics to explain the phenomena, really, and it runs counter to our understanding of physics itself. Matter seems to possess an infinite amount of energy from within it and from the smallest scale, while being constructed from it at the same time.
They try to hide behind 0 mass for the motion of light. Still, something happened to expel a photon and there seems to be no energy gain or loss in the process.
Think about all the forces associate with matter. Nuclear weak, nuclear strong, electro-magnetism, and gravity. Those forces supposedly hold that little bit of matter together, gluons, while still putting out enough energy to selectively bind it to other like particles. These bonds can be so incredibly strong that they make diamonds, or so loose they make liquids, like water.
That’s a lot of continuous mechanical output to hold those bonds together, with apparently 0 input, and no observable change in those little miraculous ball bearings of matter.
Our experience with machines and power sources is entirely different. Machines require a significant input energy to generate a usable output from the machine. And the energy source depletes rather quickly. The very best energy source available at present is processed nuclear fission, which compared to our lives seems to last a long time. In terms of the universe though, it barely registers as existing at all. To move a Tesla with a battery, that battery needs to contain nearly the same mass as the entire automobile for just a few hours of work or run time. And that battery temporarily draws from other sources of energy to charge it, pulling electrons out of thin air by passing a magnet across a piece of copper and packing the lithium with an over abundance of free electrons. Roughly speaking, right?
In my reasoning, it is the depletion of energy that makes matter, matter. It is collapsing, losing mass, and that mass loss converts to usable energy which sustains the appearance of matter. All those little pieces we see inside matter, like the nucleus, or the quarks and leptons, or the Higgs-Boson, are not binding it together, they’re impeding its collapse. It’s slowed down just enough to register as something different from space. It’s a timing difference. They’re like eddies caused from the inward motion. An electron is like the back-flow from the inward motion of the surrounding space, just like you would see a whirl pool form in a flowing river sitting behind rocks sticking out of the water. The electron is an unbound whirlpool or wave.
So, the difference between the way I see the universe, and the rest of the planet essentially, is that I don’t need to miraculously conjure a substance from nothing that we label as energy. There is nothing more to prove about existence beyond space. Science has not proved the physical existence of energy, they infer its existence through the motion of matter. e=mc² is a motion formula. If c=0, e=0. Working, or usable energy, cannot exist without motion, or to my point, when M(motion)=[0], S(space)=[1]. Space in an absolute rest state is potential energy.
So back to your omelette.
Yes, something broke. Or to my point, it always has been breaking and will continue breaking, making an ever larger omelette while defining ever smaller bits of the omelette by default. What surrounds our universe is a unified shell of motionless space. That’s the energy source for the observable universe. It is cascading perfectly and equally inward in an omnidirectional manner forming spherical bits of matter, which continue to collapse and combine inward towards [0]. [1] →[0]. That’s the inward flow of the universe. Matter is the equal and opposite reaction to expansion. As the universe cascades inward, the extent and volume of matter expands outward. There was no inflationary period because there is no need for it. It’s been a straight linear curve outward and a motion curve inward. Everything that we see and experience was probably created from a single spherical layer of the outer shell that cascaded inward, and we’re all tuned to that collapsed piece of eggshell.
It’s an ongoing process, well out of our range of detection. And that’s why it appears as if it came from the center. It would look exactly like a Big Bang, but the creation of matter occurs on the outer perimeter, not the interior.
1 >—> 0, not 0 >—> 1
We are equating the universe to a primordial explosion. We imagine space and time didn’t exist prior to this supposed explosion. But, science must inflate the universe at a high rate of speed, slow it down to condense the matter, and now they’re speeding it back up with acceleration. That violates just about every rule of physics known to mankind, not to mention the imagined beginning of the universe eliminates physics entirely, which means nothing could happen. The Big Bang is a contradiction to everything know about science and physics. That it still stands as the preeminent theory to explain the entirety of the universe is the biggest mystery of all!
I have an endless supply of potential energy surrounding the universe, feeding the system or machine. The bits of matter inside are losing a massive amount of mass energy over time as they move inward. With relative motion, you can’t notice the change. That’s the illusion of existence derived through the relative nature of motion. And there is all the space in the universe to collapse that matter indefinitely, because, [1] > ∞ > [0]. We exist inside this basic universal framework in a non-absolute state. [1] > (1+0) > [0].
My work is based on an omelette as well, Frederick. The difference is, I don’t assume things existed outside space. I’m using the only proven and available resource to create the omelette. Space.
Everything is a reflection of the greater process.
What came first, the omelette or the egg?
The egg of course.
The universe is an endless supply of omelettes stacked one on top the other, expanding outward into an ever greater quantity of omelettes, while cascading inward to an ever depleting state of omelettes.
Energy in, work out. Input/output. That’s the way machines work. It is the utter simplicity that boggles the mind, and has confounded humanity since the dawn of reason. We’re still chasing our tales while looking for the next great e=mc^2. I think that’s as good as it gets. What comes next is fully understanding the machine on the most fundamental level.
I agree with Einstein, metaphorically speaking. God does not play dice with the universe. The omelette is entropy, which begins as orderly perfection in the shell. It’s not a perpetual process, which is extremely important to convey, it is persistent. Perpetual motion is physically impossible, but that does not mean there was ever a definable starting point for the entirety of the universe. A static infinite universe is a perpetual motion machine, violating the basic laws of physics, and the Big Bang is an over unity machine, again, violating the basic laws of physics. The universe is an ongoing process, where the universe, metaphorically, is searching for the beginning and end. There is a fuel source derived from motionless space, and the output a universe, or universes. However, multiple universes are redundant, and not entirely important to consider beyond our universe. They would be identical in nature, if they do truly exist, rippling inward and outward to the furthest reaches of existence.
The mathematical answer to the universe is derived from the most fundamental of understandings, mathematically speaking, that even a child could understand. It is also extremely anti-climactic. [1] and [0] cannot occupy the same space, because [1] ≠ [0]. [1] > [0], and ∞ lies between those two end points. The universe is attempting to resolve a mathematical conflict that has no resolution. [1]/[0]=universe. And that’s why we’re here.
In mathematics, curiously, [1]/[0]=undefined.
Now it’s not.
-
5 Replies
-
“However, multiple universes are redundant, and not entirely important
to consider beyond our universe. They would be identical in nature, if
they do truly exist, rippling inward and outward to the furthest
reaches of existence.”As a side note, I’ve always had this nagging suspicion that we’re entangled with redundant universes. They would literally be identical to ours, with a slight offset in timing in either direction, forward and backward. I’ve pondered the possibility that memories are bound to entanglement, and that’s how they work. It’s sort of a hybrid many worlds interpretation, although linear in nature, and not infinite so much. The further back we look in time, mentally that is, the further back in the ripple of universes we go along an entangled chain of memories. Deja Vu could actually be a short glimpse into the future. I personally have had some extremely vivid deja vu experiences in my life. They’re really hard to wrap your head around. Feels like a 5 second glimpse into the future and usually persists for several seconds. It’s always been more than a simple feeling of familiarity to me, which is how it is often defined. I experience short predictions of what’s about to be said or happen, and that’s beyond familiar feelings. Kind of leaves you in a state of awe when you’re lucky enough to experience one.
Anyway, that’s just some random side thoughts I’ve considered. Probably nothing there, but the who the hell knows for sure, right?
-
“The mathematical answer to the universe is derived from the most fundamental of understandings, mathematically speaking, that even a child could understand. It is also extremely anti-climactic. [1] and [0] cannot occupy the same space, because [1] ≠ [0]. [1] > [0], and ∞ lies between those two end points. The universe is attempting to resolve a mathematical conflict that has no resolution. [1]/[0]=universe. And that’s why we’re here.
In mathematics, curiously, [1]/[0]=undefined.”
The distance between 0 and 1 is not infinite, it is exactly 1. You can fit arbitrarily many subdivisions in there, sure, but that does not make the distance infinite. Unless you’re saying everything is always infinite, at which point, the term loses all meaning. And saying the universe is attempting to resolve a maths problem is a bit silly. Either 1) the universe was not created by an intelligent being, and is materialistic only, in which case mathematical problems are not first class entities, so the universe is not trying to resolve a numeric division; or 2) the universe was created by an intelligent being, and it is created logically and meaningfully. Except you insist on 3) it was created by an intelligent being as a computer to solve the division 1/0, which is quite frankly silly. Why would attempting to solve 1/0 give rise to humans, and create matter?
Before framing the universe as a mathematical problem, you should examine whether your preconceived notion of numbers and what division means, and of infinity, and how all these concepts relate to each other. Because at the moment, this all sounds like esoteric kabbalah. Especially saying something like “the universe is attempting to“, you are opening a can of worms in metaphysics. You are ascribing not just meaning to the universerse, but also consciousness and will. If you have a conscious universe which possesses a will, then I wonder why you dismiss an omniscient and omnipotent creator (evident from the way you talk about it and the claims you arrive at). I find it much saner to see the universe as dead in all cases, and either then say it was intentionally created by God or it was not created, but eternally exists. But in both cases, the universe itself should remain non-sentient and therefore not possess agency or will of its own.
-
I think what Andy might have meant, was that within the “distance” of two numbers, there’s infinite possible divisions (which you also stated). Similar to how within the space of two musical notes, there’s an infinite possible sounds available. Of course, we as human beings couldn’t possibly detect with our limited hearing, more than say, one hundred of them. Just a guess. 🙂
-
Actually, Andy and I have had quite a few debates about this and other such ideas in the past. Of course, no offense, Andy!
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by Jerry.
-
It would be much more meaningful if he said what he meant using terms that are related to what he means. Because showing that between two values, you can always construct a value that lies between those, means nothing except that ratios can achieve arbitrary precision. No metaphysical insight about the nature of existence directly follows from that, at least for me.
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
-