Leave no stone un-turned. Question everything.
Are you sure you want to leave ?
Motion Part 1
Motion Part 1
Motion has always been a fascinating mystery.
Why is everything moving.
What’s driving motion?
Why do mass-less particle appear to zip around at a peak velocity?
Are these mass-less particles accelerating to their peak from 0?
Why can’t mass particles exceed C?
Is anything not moving, or is there a true 0 velocity anywhere in the universe?
Why is C, C, no matter how fast we travel?
Why does anything move at all?
If you ask a scientist, a photon travels at C because it is massless. All massless particles travel at C. And they’ll explain that it is electromagnetic radiation or something, and it’s not a particle. If they knew what electromagnetism truly was, I might agree. But, they don’t.
The actual truth is, they have no idea what that speed limit means, or what motion is fundamentally. It’s a hand wave to nature. That’s what a photon does because it is massless. End of story.
Motion occurs in opposite directions, inward and outward, along a scalar dimension.
This is a fundamental representation of the universe.
 < ∞ < 
That’s the total universe in a nutshell. We’re in the middle.  represents the absolute maximum state of a universe which is motionless space. We’ll call it absolute space for simplicity sake.  is the absence of space, obviously.
We’re in the middle.
Our universe is infinite, wedged between two finite values.
Our entire universe accelerates and decelerates in contraction waves and expansion waves between  and . There is no real at rest position, and motion cannot remain constant. Motion is either in an accelerating state, or decelerating state. This is confirmed by Einstein’s original math. The universe cannot stand still. It either needs to expand or contract, according to Einstein. However, Einstein and the rest of science missed something. It wasn’t an either or answer. The universe must expand and contract at the same time simultaneously. And that’s exactly what it is doing.
Contraction manifests in matter, and expansion manifests in the space we traverse. Contraction is negative energy, and expansion is positive energy. Matter contracts and accelerates inward, and the space we traverse decelerates as it expands outward. They’re doing so along a scalar dimension which occurs from any point in space, because space fundamentally is dimensionless. It’s what we view as homogeneity. Space is exactly the same everywhere. There is no center to the universe.
To understand real speed limits we need to look at the logic limits of motion, NOT the relative limits of motion. The relative limits are the illusion of our physical reality.  is a dead stop.  is instantaneous motion from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe. Neither  nor  are possible velocities within our universe. It can get close, but that’s about it. These conditions lie in the finite universe beyond our physical reality.
Proving the impossibility of instantaneous motion is almost easier than proving a dead stop. The universe expands and contracts, which means the line length between  and  is always increasing. The smaller something gets the bigger something can be, and vice versa. The size of the universe is always in an expanding state. And that makes sense because it assures we exist.
Suppose the universe=100 in scale at 1:00pm. What that means exactly is irrelevant for this purpose. I start my journey from point A along an edge of the universe. Then I hit the gas and move to B on the opposite end of the universe in what appeared to be 0 seconds. When I look down at my watch the universe is now 101 in scale, because the universe expands and contracts at the same time. A faster instantaneous motion is now possible, so now I can’t claim the previous velocity was truly instantaneous. Our motion between two points is defined by the minimum and maximum state of the universe at any given moment in time. In an expanding an contracting universe, motions potential is always rising and falling simultaneously. The faster we can go, the slower we can go, and vice versa. We use relative measurements. From a practicality standpoint, we can only compare our velocity against other things within the universe that are already in some state of motion. Defining motion from a relative standpoint is a process of synchronization, which doesn’t really say anything about physical motion. As long as everything is doing the same thing, we’re at rest, or our relative velocity is 0. Compared to something else we may be doing 1000kph.
So that brings me back to massless particle, and what that motion represents. Let’s look at all the things that are happening in motion. This is the direction of motion for matter from left to right.
Light travels on the edge of expansion and contraction, flipping back and forth between a contraction wave and an expansion wave. That’s the wave particle duality problem. It is both, but light does not actually reach C. It lags slightly behind it. C is an acceleration curve, not a constant velocity. Nothing in the universe can actually reach C, including mass-less particles, which makes sense. Motion cannot be created or destroyed. And that means we can only move based on motion already present in our relative state. C doesn’t exist for us until after it has occurred.
Light travels at the maximum possible velocity within the universe, but it cannot equal or exceed the acceleration curve. Light is drug behind the curve, or .
The maximum velocity in our universe is -1 or 1, not . The minimum velocity in our universe is 0, not .
The motion scale within our universe looks like this:
Contraction occurs on the left, and expansion occurs on the right.
The mass (space) scale looks like this:
Time follows mass:
Motion is really absolute. Something either moves or it doesn’t.
So, to us, the motion of light looks like this:
[-e] + [+e] = 1
Light appears to travel at a constant velocity of 1 (299792458m/s to us)
[-m] – [+m] = 0
There is no physical difference between the two waves, so it appears as a massless particle.
[-t] – [+t] = 0
Because there is no difference in mass, there is no difference in time. A massless particle is timeless. It will last forever.
The reason we cannot reach C from a mass particle standpoint, is because we cannot reach a velocity that doesn’t exist yet. Obviously. A massless particle can reveal the acceleration curve, even though it is not reaching the velocity of the acceleration curve. There is an exponential difference between + and – energy, which is where c^2 comes from.
This is also why C always appears to be C no matter how fast we go. It’s an acceleration curve, not a static velocity.
But it’s all motion though. There is no energy per se. Energy is the motion of space propagating in two distinct wave forms. One wave contracts and accelerates inward, and the other wave expands and decelerates outward.
This is from Maxwell, which supports what I’m saying:
“Between interactions, photons don’t exist. You can’t watch a photon in transit, only detect an excitation of the electromagnetic field when it happens.”
This is from Einstein, which supports what I’m saying:
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.
This is from Stephen Hawking, which supports what I’m saying:
e=half the energy in the universe
[-e] + [+e] = 
I’m not trying to name drop. I came up with this concept independently before reading these articles.
I don’t think any these man understood the significance of what they said or did. It was just math problems with an answer. They didn’t see it, probably due to personal bias they had to alternative speculation. Einstein wanted a steady state and fabricated Lambda to stabilize his formulas. Stephen Hawking didn’t consider the true absolute nature of the universe, and originally said all the energy combined equaled nothing. Maxwell was pure math, and the belief that energy was a physical substance floating around in space.
The entire universe is modeled on speculation, NOT math. Math is guide. When I look at the same observations and the same results of their math, I see a BETTER explanation that fits with common sense reasoning.
I explain everything in simple understandable terms, in plain English. No one else has been able to do that frankly. Science actually believes in the theory that nonsense rules the universe, literally. I have actually read it, heard it, and experienced it in science. Most scientists will tell you the universe doesn’t have to make sense, which by definition is literally nonsense.
The universe must make sense. It’s just machine, and we merely lack an understanding the fundamental blueprints.
I have a lot more explained under Falling Aether by John-Erik. I don’t feel this is written as well as some of the other content. I hope I’ve given enough pieces. Tired or writing it, AGAIN. I’ll probably do a follow up later when I have time. I didn’t talk much about mass particles, which are simply contraction waves accelerating inward.
- This discussion was modified 6 months ago by Andy.
Sorry, there were no replies found.