• Fundamental Universe Theory

  Glenn Borchardt's Infinite Universe Theory

  Posted by Andy on June 16, 2023 at 4:37 pm

  And to Glenn Borchardt’s notion that the universe is all matter; that is a possible interpretation as well. Every stress bump and ripple in the observable universe could be interpreted as a piece of matter in motion, including light. I think that’s where this wave/particle duality comes into play. Is it a wave, or a particle? Technically speaking, neither. It’s just space in motion. Mass is no more physically significant or real or different than the concept of energy. It’s all just space. Of course there is going to be an equivalency between the motion of space and the motion of space. Mass is space. Energy is space. The entire universe is in a state of motion which is space put to work. If the motion of space reduces to [0], space returns to its potential state with a value of [1].

  However, I will disagree with Glenn on the scale of the observable universe, categorically. It cannot be statically infinite in extent, nor can it contain an infinite quantity of matter. Motionless space itself extends forever outward, but it ends in the opposite direction inward where the observable universe begins. And the observable universe must necessarily extend endlessly inward, until it reaches [0], which cannot exist by default. Our observable universe is reaching out in both direction trying to find its beginning and end, endlessly. Infinity=constant of change. Finite=absence of change.

  Of course there’s a lot more to discuss, which I’ve done countless times before. I have basically been repeating the same exact story over and over again for the past 15-20 years in different ways, tuning the logic with each iteration, and seeing more clearly how this applies to things we have not historically understood. Although I offer only simple mathematical logic and human reasoning, it does seem to answer a lot of those nagging fundamental questions reasonably, logically, and accurately, which is the only thing I really cared about. It is answering the why’s and hows in plain English, which is something I consider of paramount importance. I have always felt that if someone needed a complex math formula to explain something to me or anyone else, they have no clue what they’re explaining to me, or anyone else. I’m not trying to build anything. I can understand fundamentally how a nuclear reactor works, or even a fusion reactor, but I certainly have no intentions of learning how to design and build one. That would take another 20 years of my life.

  I don’t speak science, I speak English. While that can be a handicap at times, it most certainly does not cripple or stunt my intellect or ability to reason a problem through to completion. It just takes me a little longer to explain.

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