I always try to improve my writing for fidelity’s sake. My view hasn’t changed much, but it does become clearer over time. I also discover subtle nuances and better ways to explain the things I see without ambiguity.
I should again divulge that I am not a scientist or physicist. This is simply 40 years of trying to understand the universe on a fundamental level using reason and logic. I know, we aren’t supposed to think for ourselves, just bang out numbers using math and other peoples reasoning. Sue me for thinking critically.
Stephen Hawking made an off the cuff remark. If you take the sum of all energy in the universe the result would be 0.
What he meant mathematically was;
If e=.5, then (-e) + (+e) = 0
That’s clearly a violation in the laws of physics, because energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It only transforms.
Energy must be absolute. I think Hawking’s missed it.
[-e] + [+e] = 
And this leads us to a second conclusion.
[-e] – [+e] = 
There is no difference between positive and negative energy.
[-e] = [+e]
There is an equivalency between positive and negative energy.
What is , becomes the question?
 < ∞ < 
The universe is infinite, because energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Look at energy as expansion and contraction. Contracting energy is negative, and expansive energy is positive. I guess we could label it either way, but it’s the way I like it.
Einstein’s original work was based on an infinite static steady state universe. This is a cut of GR before Hubble. It’s an article about Einstein’s lost theory. A universe without a big bang.
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. Einstein chose to ignore what his mathematics was telling him.
This is when he fudged his math and added Lambda to stabilize the universe into a static steady state. His infamous blunder, which was a clear mistake. Static infinity is what everyone believed in those days. Our universe was infinitely large and static. Everyone in science still seems to believe an infinite universe must be static in nature. That’s the fundamental flaw in our reasoning, not an infinite universe. They’re imaging the wrong infinite universe.
I think Einstein discovered something, and his original raw math was correct, but….
Then Hubble came along and the rest is history.
I think the telling statement in the above is, “it had to either expand or contract.”
Why exactly can’t the universe do both at the same time?
Contraction manifests in matter, and expansion manifests in the space we traverse. Matter doesn’t just float around in space, it’s the other half of the universe.
[-e] = [+e]
We are expanding and contracting simultaneously.
Matter is being created from the outer edge and contracts inward as it accelerates. The space between matter comes from the inner edge and expands outward as it decelerates. Space being the cracks between matter that allows it to move. Without a division between matter and space we get friction. Nothing could move.
 < ∞ < 
That is a motion scalar, and we’re wedged between two finite values which can never be realized.
You have to look at the logical limits of motion, not the limit of C.
The slowest anything can move is , which is a real dead stop.
The fastest anything can move is , which signifies instantaneous motion from A to B. Logically nothing can go faster, because you would have to arrive at B before leaving A for that to occur. It’s not a time paradox, it’s a logical fact of motion. It’s as simple as 1+1=2. It’s not debatable, unless someone wants to invoke magic. Non sequitur. Motion cannot occur without moving.
Matter moves from  to .
Space moves from  to .
C is a motion curve which lies between acceleration and deceleration.
Imagine getting in a car with unlimited power. When you press the accelerator you have a range of acceleration between your current velocity and 1. As long as you’re pressing the gas pedal you’re accelerating. We’re always in motion, because motion is energy. Matter is always in an accelerating state. If you lift your foot off the gas and apply the brakes you begin to slow down. And you also have a range of deceleration depending on how hard you press the brake.
Motion is 1-dimensional, and it is orientated inward and outward.
I suspect a wave of creation swept across a region of motionless space, and that is where we came from. We’re tuned to this particular state of motion, and are contracting inward while accelerating.
The universe really isn’t as 3D as we think it is. We’re points on a line, and it’s the magnitude of our motion and the dimensions connecting points that gives us the illusion of substance. There are no surfaces, or planes, or geometric shapes. Objects are made from points, and our minds fill in blanks smoothing out all the crevices. What we observe is a function of velocity and the separation of energy. It’s a property of focus. A constellation isn’t a lot different from a coffee cup sitting on the table fundamentally. Our minds are very good at playing connect-the-dots.
Understanding motion is the tricky part to wrap your head around. It’s not what it appears to be on the surface.
All matter is contracting and accelerating inward. We come from a high mass low energy state, and are moving inward to a high energy low mass state. We’re already traveling at C. Motion cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. Our observed motion occurs in the outward direction. We’re backing off the accelerator, so to speak. Relative to other objects we appear to be speeding up, when fundamentally, we’re just slowing our inward acceleration relative to the natural curve. C is a transition point from acceleration to deceleration, or a 180 degree change in the direction of motion. If we were to breach C, matter would flip inside out and begin expanding and decelerating outward.
Motion is constantly being re-defined with expansion and contraction. True instantaneous motion is not possible. That state is being defined by the scale of the universe. For example, traveling from the inner edge to the outer edge of the universe in 0 seconds defines the highest possible motion. BUT, we are expanding and contracting at the same time, so the line between A to B is always extending. The original journey we took from A to B is no longer the fastest possible velocity, because the universe is a little longer. That acceleration curve is bound to  and , and the distance between them is rising ∞. The higher the definition of acceleration, the slower the definition of deceleration. The bottom and top on either end can never be reached.  and  are impossible while the entire material universe is in motion. They remain persistently out of reach, and that’s what fuels expansion and contraction. It’s not perpetual motion, it’s persistent motion, because nothing can impede expansion and contraction, or acceleration and deceleration. Our motion is derived from fixed finite points or limits. What those limits mean is derived from the line length, but they can’t change.  is always the bottom end limit, and  is always the top end limit.
The universe is built on a series of 1-dimensional problems interacting with each other.
S=Space / M=Motion / T=Time
When M=, T= and S=
When M=, T= and S=
Space, Time and Motion are bound dimensions.
Our perceived limits are always a little less, so we’re sort of a non-absolute condition.
When M=1, T=0 and S=0
When M=0, T=1 and S=1
1 and 0 for us is a perceptual limit.
Space is the physical ingredient
Motion is the active ingredient
Time is the perceptual ingredient
We cannot experience the absolute finite limits of space, motion, and time, and we can’t directly perceive finite states.
Each point of matter is its own unique dimension. It is the magnitude and connections between these points that build this illusion of reality in our minds. There is an incomprehensible number of dimensions to form our material universe, and that number will always remain in flux.
infinity = constant of change
finite = absence of change
There is evidence to what I’m saying in quantum entanglement.
Each particle is unique on its own.
A – Motion (am0—>am1)
A – Space (as1—>as0)
A – Time (at1—>at0)
B – Motion (bm0—>bm1)
B – Space (bs1—>bs0)
B – Time (bt1—>bt0)
When they become entangled, as0 physically binds with bs0.
am0 |——1——| bm0
as1 |——0——| bs1
at1 |——0——| bt1
The set is still bound to the fundamental laws of motion, but the communication between them becomes virtually absolute in a bound state. They become a reflection of each other, communicating in a mirror image.
It’s what we observe.
The point is, Quantum Mechanics is looking in the forward direction, and General Relativity is looking in the backward direction. QM is studying the future, which is a higher energy lower mass state, and GM is studying the past, which is a lower energy higher mass state.
QM is studying the effects of acceleration.
GR is studying the effects of deceleration.
They are equal but opposite physics bound to C, which is a motion curve, NOT a speed limit.
No idea how any of this would tie into anyone’s mathematics.
I think this is right, but I obviously can’t prove much here. It’s based on deductive reasoning and logic. No one seems to like human reasoning and logic in science. Oddly enough.
Sorry, there were no replies found.