• Fundamental Universe Theory

  Expansion, Contraction, Aether, and the Cosmological Constant

  Posted by Andy on June 16, 2023 at 2:24 pm

  I don’t consider my theory alternate to the big bang, I consider it a parallel interpretation of the observations. It should be nearly identical, observationally and mathematically speaking, but without a bang.

  With that said, I see no need for ether. The reasoning is simple; everything is made from space. As such, there is no such thing as empty space, as that would be similar to claiming empty water, which is a nonsensical declaration.

  Although I am coming at this from a different angle and with a different set of assumptions, our universe is expanding nearly exactly as observed. However, what the Big Bang seems to ignore is the laws of physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction is gravity, which manifests in the simultaneous contraction of space, which culminates in the contraction of matter itself. The observable universe and all the matter contained within it are a reaction to expansion. Expansion and contraction is a bound state and what is causing the motion of all matter all the way down to the core of matter, and the motion of light.

  With that said, Einstein predicted in his field equation there was no preference to expansion or contraction. Einstein did not like that because the prevailing view was an infinitely large static universe, which is what he believed true. That’s when he arbitrarily added a variable to his work, a cosmological constant called lambda. After the Hubble observation, Einstein recanted lambda, calling it his biggest blunder. And it was. He believed his field equation could have predicted expansion. While true enough, science picked one based on the Red Shift observation. They believed gravity would eventually overtake expansion slowing it down, and the universe would begin contracting at a later time. Contraction was disregarded as irrelevant. The possibility that both were occurring simultaneously was not a consideration put forward. To this day, no one seems to have considered the possibility, because all the conventional or mainstream physics revolve around the Red Shift, CMB, and Big Bang.

  Einstein was correct. Lambda was a mistake. It is not real, making its value 0. However, in the late 90’s science discovered the universe was undergoing acceleration. They dusted off the erroneous arbitrary lambda, or the cosmological constant, and arbitrarily assigned it a positive value to align with the observation, compounding the confusion. They now call this dark energy. Another flawed and unnecessary concept to explain the nature of the universe. It is generating a lot of new funding though, so not all is lost to science apparently. Silver lining I suppose, if aimlessly running on a treadmill headed nowhere is your thing.

  Current scientific dogma imagines space being created, which is nonsensical. Space occupies 100% of existence, logically speaking. It does not need creating. Space is all that exists. Everything else imagined as existing in parallel to space is magically conjured. Energy as a material entity is an assumption. Particles existing independently of space is an assumption. Things are not floating around in empty space, because those things are space, but in a contracted state, versus the universally expanding state. The universe is a transformation of motionless space, which exists beyond the universe. It must exist.

  The universe is fundamentally a machine, and operates on a mechanical level, like all machines. It’s cogs and gears. All machines need a fuel source that converts to usable energy. Motionless space is that endless supply of potential energy. It is the ball sitting on the peak of a hill, waiting to roll down into the universal valley we call a universe, so to speak.

  I can see no other logical explanation.

  Motion is 1-dimensional. And that is such an important declaration, because this is where orientation manifests. Mainstream science has us motoring around the universe on a 2-dimensional plane within a 3-dimensional space. They imagine space as a curved plain. That is not what’s going on.

  3 spatial dimensions is a medieval and arcane way to look at the universe. Yes, we can construct a 3D model of space, but those models are built on single dimensions of length which have orientation to them. Orientation is the absolutely essential and necessary aspect of 3D modeling. There is no dimension of width, length, or height. That’s just nonsense. There is inward and outward, which gives us a depth of field and sense of scale. Matter is dimensionless point data. You can put enough points together to make a bigger thing, but those things are connected along a 1-dimensional scalar running inward and outward. It is the depth of field that matters, not the interconnected points which appear to be floating around in 3D space. Appearances are deceiving.

  There are only 2 directions of motion, inward, and outward. Our motion curves along that singular dimension of magnitude, or scale, not space. This is how our brains are able to interpret 3 dimensional space as such.

  Our universe begins with the perfect state of motionless space, then entropy takes over in the cascading inward collapse of motionless space. It is what drives expansion which transforms into the contraction of matter.

  Space is a remarkable substance. It occupies 100% of all existence, everywhere all at once. It is a unified continuous state, seamless and perfectly smooth. It is a perfect solid in its motionless state constructed entirely of itself. It is unbreakable and is incapable of even forming a crack. It cannot be created nor destroyed. For all practical purposes, space is energy. Motionless space ends where our universe begins, and our universe ends on [0], which is a physical impossibility. [0] is non-existence, which by definition can’t exist physically.

  There was no beginning to the universe, but there certainly was a beginning to all the observable matter we see and exist within.

  Existence is absolute. It cannot go away or reduce to [0]. That is guaranteed mathematically.

  [1]-[0]=[1]

  The absolute difference between something and nothing always results in something.

  [1]/[0]=∞

  Our universe exists in the divide between absolute something and absolute nothing. And that simple fact gives rise to a linear order of magnitude, which is why math is applicable to the universe. Linear motion is the numbering system of science that allows us to perform calculations on the universe.

  [1] > ∞ > [0]

  We’re in the middle. Endlessly expanding and contracting between two absolute states. Motionless space is an endless and limitless fuel source driving the universe in a persistent manner. It is not perpetual, because that is a violation in the laws of physics. It has a fuel source driving its motion, like all machines must.

  I have spent nearly 40 years just trying to form a logical hypothesis to explain what animates the universe. This is the most likely logical explanation for the universe. It weaves a path of reason and logic between mainstream physics and fringe alternative physics. It is the logical results based on real science as explained to me through 100’s, if not 1000’s of people in science. Exactly like anyone in science reading this paper. It is the culmination of thousands upon thousands of hours of work. Thousands of written pages of text. Thousands of hours of communication and debate. Thousands of graphics I created to help point me in a direction. I’ve been driven out of chat forums, banned, cranked, crack potted, had physics books metaphorically thrown at my head, been disparaged, insulted, intellectually beaten and abused, and on and on. I can assure anyone reading this, my intentions have always been pure and honest at heart. I just wanted an answer before I died. I wasn’t trying to build anything or sell anything. I wasn’t looking for fame and fortune. I was simply curious. I don’t take any of the negative aspects of this journey personally. I get how it looks.

  I’m not wrong.

  Fundamental answers require rational fundamental thinking, not a 10 year masters program. That knowledge everyone is amassing is only raising the complexity to a simple problem. Everyone wants complexity. They want the math formula, and empirical evidence. And sure, I get that, to a point. From where I sit on the edge looking in, this thing was solved somewhere around 1917. All it should have taken was a regrouping of the brilliant minds collaborating a new concept. Wipe the blackboard clean, and start over. Think of something better and more reasonable. Science clearly works in isolation. They dump papers into the collective hoping peers will read it, confirm it, and embrace it. If that paper goes viral it gets added to the mainstream collective of “known” physics. There’s no mechanism in science for logical and rational collaboration. Scientific papers are the bread and butter of science. It’s how you guys eat. There’s no bank in conclusions.

  There you have it.

  The universe is deterministic, not random. Einstein was correct, metaphorically speaking. “God does not play dice with the universe.”

  • This discussion was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by  Andy.

  Andy replied 10 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies
• 0 Replies

Log In to Reply