[Nick]

Andy, I can accept your premise without necessarily agreeing with it. However, below I will quote (with quote marks) some sections and state my problems with them. At the end, I suggest taking your thesis one step further than you have:

“[-e] – [+e] = [0]

And what this tells us is there is literally no different between the two halves of energy, confirming we are made from one thing, absolute space.

[-e] = [+e]”

&

“Our universe is infinite by default, because through deductive reasoning we know we aren’t [1] or [0]. Infinity is all that remains to describe it.

[0] < ∞ <[1]

[0] is the absence of space. [1] is the absence of [0]. ∞, our universe, is in neither state. We should know, because we exist.”

I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.

“All I can say to anyone imagining I’m wrong, show me something else that physically exists. After nearly 100 years (modern science) of theory and smashing atoms, has anyone in the scientific community found a single gram of some other raw material to build a universe? The answer is no, clearly and unequivocally. Falsify me. Point out some other fundamental physical ingredient in the universe. Show me.”

This seems like circular reasoning which rules out disagreement with your current thinking. Someone, not me, might point ot “energy” and sing your methodology build the unioverse from energy and Yes, you would say thatt’s not consistent with your thinking, but So what?

“Our universe is not spatially 3-dimensional, it is spatially 1-dimensional. What gives us the perception of three dimensions is the addition of motion and time, and the separation of like energy. Everything we observe is made from points of matter. We observe the universe center out from these points. Space, motion, and time, are all bound together. These are not independent dimensions. There is no temporal dimension. Motion cannot occur without space, and time cannot occur without motion, and we cannot experience space without motion and time. Space is the primary physical dimension. Motion is the secondary active derivative dimension. Time is the third perceptual derivative dimension. Motion and time do not physically exist, they occur in space.

Our primitive view of the universe imagines empty space. We imagine geometry and shapes. We imagine endless space. These things are real to us, because we see shapes built from points of matter. Our mind plays connect the dots, and draws smooth imaginary lines and planes and shapes to fill in the gaps. These 3D shapes don’t physically exist, they are a construct of points traveling along a 1-dimensional path, inward or outward, and our imagination. A human being is made up of about 7 octillian points of matter, all moving inward.

Really think about how we are physically deciphering our environment. We see the universe through collisions of matter, but we don’t actually see the universe. Each collision represents a point to point impact along a 1-dimensional path. Our mind reinterprets these collisions as substance and builds imaginary images of shapes so we can interpret the world around us. The human eye is estimated to be around 576 megapixels. A tad better than a 12 megapixel iPhone.

We are derived from a single point of existence. Space. [1]. The underlying space from which we are derived has no definable mathematical dimensions or geometrically describable shape or scale. It is simply a point, and we are a product of that point. The motion, position, alignment, quantity, and timing, etc., of those points, is what defines geometric shapes in our minds. We can build things out of these points in the real world, because these points align in an array of various fundamental structures that clump together. It gives these individual points the illusion of substance, where there is only space.”

I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.

“I am not wrong.”

There way too much of the above which only serves to foster close mindedness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I direct you to my thoughts on “time”. I think and hope that you will see ourselves as kindred spirits. I think my reference below adds, or subtracts, another dimension to your thesis! See https://youtu.be/mm_pFfyweIc

[Andy]

“I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.”

And here’s my response to this comment.

I think we’re missing something very fundamental about dimension. We define space as 3D, which I get, but something feels off, or missing, or inadequate about that definition. It’s too obvious. Einstein added time as a 4^th dimension, and I think that breaks the mold in defining what a dimension represents physically or spatially. I personally think the idea of this independent time dimension, as most do on this site I suppose, is wrong. However, that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t a dimension in understanding the nature of our existence or reality. Time is real to us.

On the most fundamental level I see our universe as a line segment. I can’t see any logical reason to assume it is anything more. On the absolute most fundamental mathematical level, our entire universe is 1-dimensional.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

Keep in mind, I am looking at the universe from its most rudimentary form, not what we see necessarily. Looks are deceiving. We cannot trust our eyes.

The way I interpret this is that our universe is completely linear in nature, and that makes perfect sense from a mathematical standpoint. Our universe is a point of existence between [0] and [1]. [0] being the total absence of existence, or the minimum state for a total universe, and [1] being total existence, or the maximum state of a total universe. The two ends are finite states, or finite universes, but both of those end points only represent potential, because the universe can only be in 1 of 3 positions along that line segment. We don’t have to know where it is between [0] and [1]. We merely need to understand that it is not [0] or [1], then we can deduce fundamentally what state it is in presently.

This idea of absolute 1 is a new concept. At least, I have never heard of anyone else discussing it. However, given human nature, I doubt this is exclusive to my thoughts. Just wanted to put that out there. I consider this as potential common knowledge down the road that some may already be considering.

[1] = Absolute Space

[0] = Absence of Space

∞ = Our Universe

Absolute space is the absence of motion. Without motion, nothing can happen. Time doesn’t tick. Energy is meaningless. Matter can’t exist. It is a perfectly balanced existence. I typically view this as a frozen state of the universe, but even there it is difficult to describe in that manner. The universe would be a singular object existing everywhere void of any definable characteristics or properties mathematically. It is a dimensionless state. From our perspective it could only be defined logically with a numeric property of [1]. It’s not nothing. It is, however, an impossible state. In my mind that’s simple to understand. There is no mechanics in a finite value for change. I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.

The same would go for [0]. There is no mechanics in a finite value. Absolute 0 is a little easier to wrap your head around though. Something cannot come from nothing.

Our existence is the empirical evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that our universe is not [0], or [1], and can never reach either end of the universal line segment. And I think that’s most likely the point of the universal machine. It endlessly tries to find the end points, and fortunately for us it never will. States of matter are a lessor reflection of the greater process. We humans have beginnings and ends, for example. Conception = 1. Life = ∞. Death = 0.

Our existence is non absolute from our perspective.

Looking back at [1], we can begin to understand other potential properties in their minimum and maximum values. Time for example, is a perceptual dimension. It doesn’t physically exist contrary to popular belief. As a matter of perspective, we could define time in its absolute maximum longest frequency [1] when the universe equals [1]. Motion becomes obvious in this frozen state, its value would be [0] because times value is [1]. Time and motion must run opposite of each other, and I think that contradicts how we view time at present. We see slowing time as a fading of time with our motion. At C we think T=0. I think the reason for this is that we view time as an independent dimension, and we imagine we are outrunning the effects of the time dimension or something. Not sure. It’s never made any sense to me, so I disregard popular dogma when it doesn’t make sense. I think the proper way to look at it logically is expanding time. It’s a frequency drop with our motion. Time expands and contracts with space. The logic for me is clear. Maximum velocity is [1]. [1] would represent instantaneous motion from A to B, which means time goes to [0] when velocity reaches [1]. It takes 0 seconds to go from A to B instantaneously. When motion stops, time must go to [1] as a matter of perspective, because change ceases to be possible. I think we have a lot of this inverted in science. It’s an easy thing to do, because it is confusing from our perspective, and we’re clinging to Einstein’s universe and our physical sense of reality. Einstein saw time as a physical dimension independent of motion. He imagined us moving through time. Time is not a physical dimension; it is a perceptual dimension derived through motion but manifesting in space. Time expands and contracts with space, because space expands and contracts with motion. But time, like motion, is not something we can put in jar. It occurs.

And what does any of this say about 3D space? Exactly.

I think this…

[0] < ∞ < [1]

…is a 1-dimensional scalar.

What gives a point of matter meaning is the magnitude of its motion and time. It’s not spatially 3D, it is spatially 1-D.

And I know this seems weird.

But, in order to define the space we occupy as 3D we need a clearly defined box for our space to sit inside, because we need 3 points along the outer most boundary to define a physical location within the box. That’s what makes 3D, 3D. Space itself is undefined. It is dimensionless. Yes, we can key in on other points within an imaginary box to set a course, but that’s not defining the larger box, or our universe in this case. We don’t know if there is an edge to the universe, so we can’t know if it’s 3D.

That scalar gives the universe a linear dimension of orientation, inward and outward, which is far more important in setting a course to a destination. Hell, we can keep a target in the window to find out where we’re headed. Our universe is completely homogeneous. We can move in the direction of [0] and [1] from anywhere. Our motion is always 1-dimensional. Our time is always 1-dimensional. What changes is our magnitude, which is also 1 dimensional. I think we can assume each point of matter represents a separate state of dimension. We’re made up of countless dimensions, but fundamentally physical existence is 1-dimensional. We either exist, or we don’t, but the magnitude of that existence is what’s important. That’s what gives our existence meaning.

I see the overall universe expanding in magnitude, while the overall matter contracts in magnitude. Two halves of the whole, but the whole would end in a dimensionless finite state of [1].

Find the edges of the universe, and then I will agree 100% the universe is spatially 3D.

And now I’m starting to get into my concept of motion.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

“I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.”

At work, but I wanted to respond to a couple of things really quick. I’ll elaborate more when I find the time.

There is a lot of information I haven’t expanded on, or included. This post was more specific to ‘space’, with a preview of things to come. There is only so far we can go with math. Math can only lead us to an answer. Once that answer is realized we must set down our pens and rationalize the result. I’ve given a perfect answer with no ambiguity based on the words of Stephen Hawking. It is by definition, flawless math. The answer is [1]. That’s it. And that fundamental answer is going to be somewhat anti-climactic. Math cannot go beyond the end or the beginning, by default. The answer to the fundamental universe is what drives physics, and math, and geometry. If you take all the energy in the universe and combine it we’re left with [1] thing. That’s as far as we can take it mathematically.

What does it mean?

My answer is space, because anything more or less is speculative. Space is all we’ve ever proven to exist. Even peering into atoms on the atomic level all we’ve found is more space. It’s the lines between space and more space that puzzles us. No one has ever been able to quantify it. I see it as the dividing line between expansive and contractive energy, where energy is defined by space, motion, and time. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Energy is real, but only in so far as it’s an amalgamation of the process. A label describing many things.

In the end, as much as I hate to say it, all that remains is a consensus in the definition I have laid out. As far as I’m concerned space is the only logical physical ingredient in matter, based on the facts we know. It’s all we need, but space needs to do something for us to experience it.

So, we have an answer of [1]. It’s a real answer. My pinning of the proverbial tail on the imaginary donkey is no more and no less valid than the next person.

The answer is space.

“I am not wrong.”

There way too much of the above which only serves to foster close mindedness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I stated, every theory is partially correct, but every theory must also contain equal parts of wrong and/or unknown. I’m certainly no exception to the truths I see.

That declaration was simply a play on wording. A creative liberty to invoke a response. I think it worked.

“I think and hope that you will see ourselves as kindred spirits.”

Absolutely!

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

“I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.”

I will present my case, and you’ll see it. No doubt in my mind. Is it right? That’s the question.

[Andy]

“I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.

This seems like circular reasoning which rules out disagreement with
your current thinking. Someone, not me, might point at “energy” and sing
your methodology built the universe from energy and Yes, you would say
that’s not consistent with your thinking, but So what?”

I wanted to circle back around on this comment.

[-e] + [+e] = [1] (assuming e=.5)

I’m calling it absolute space, because when I close my eyes and imagine a universe without energy that’s all I see is a dimensionless black void. Dimensionless being an important distinction from endless, because it is one thing only equal and relative to itself.

I would agree 100% that someone could consider it in this manner…

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

In the end it is merely a label for a dimensionless state of the universe. And maybe that is a better way to label it for acceptance sake.

absolute energy = absolute space.

If you did look at absolute space as absolute energy, it could also be considered pure energy. The problem with this idea of “pure energy”, is that it must be absolute in nature. Meaning, it is neither positive or negative from our perspective. Positive energy doesn’t mean anything without its negative opposite and vice versa. Pure energy must be an absolute state of energy, because +e or -e is only describing 1/2 of energies potential. The whole is pure, meaning it can be positive or negative. Pure energy though, has no physical properties. It would just exist, exactly like space just exists. So what’s the difference?

I think the argument would be more about semantics than actual answers.

Separating the two into independent objects doesn’t make a lot of sense in my mind. Space we can easily imagine existing. Space must exist, because there is no way to delete it. It follows with the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I would replace the term “energy” with “space”. Superimposing an element of energy on top of space is speculative. There is no reason for anything but space to exist logically.

Of course we’re down on the most fundamental level of understanding, so evidence is sparse, albeit, non-existent. And that’s a literal guarantee when we’re looking at the universe on the most fundamental level. A rational consensus is the only way out on that level, unfortunately.

Sure, someone could debate what I’m saying til we’re both blue in the face. What would be the point in that? Everyone loses, because we can’t even agree on what the universal machine is made from. It’s as you say, a circular argument. The existence of energy is a belief, not a fact. The existence of space is a fact, not a belief. Beliefs have no place in science.

If we say energy and space coexist, and they can both be in a potential absolute state mathematically, then we have to toss space out of science. It is nothing more than a fixed immovable object or underlying superconductor that energy moves along. Space is no longer meaningful or relevant to the problem, because it can’t do anything. It’s sole purpose would be as a substrate for energy to exist on. That contradicts most of what we observe and understand.

Space is the fundamental baseline of existence as far as I can rationalize the problem. I can’t imagine it any other way. Space is the primary building block for everything. Energy is realized through the actions of space.

I was thinking about the fundamentals.

The final answer to the universe must by the sum total of all the variables that make up the universe. We’re left with a meaningless value derived from our mathematics and numeric system. [1]. It makes sense logically. Calculating the universe wouldn’t work very well without a direct correlation to a numeric system. We have to be able to get back to [1] and [0]. [-e] + [+e] = [1], and [-e] – [+e] = [0]. It is fundamentally necessary to maintain a direct link to an upper and lower limit. We are the linear order of magnitude that lies between these two values.

I just keep coming to the same conclusions every time I go through the logic. A direct link is a must.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Andy.