Fundamental Universe Theory
Leave no stone un-turned. Question everything.
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
Probably the Last Post
-
Probably the Last Post
It’s frustrating knowing something, but also knowing the answer falls on deaf ears. I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but on this answer, I’m (99%) right, contrary to popular beliefs surrounding infinity. It’s the only way it can be. My reasoning is sound. Of course, I always reserve the right to be wrong, after all, I am merely a human being. Us human beings have a rich history of being embarrassingly wrong, 100% of the time, when it comes to understanding the fundamentals of the universe. It usually takes one stubborn human being more than a lifetime to break through the barriers of popular consensus beliefs and false reasoning. I’ve been doing this for 40+ years, and I have far fewer years in front of me than I do behind me. Time is running out for me, and I can only hope someone gets it, and can take this to the proper level of investigation. It’s pretty simple honestly, as it should be. A fundamental understanding requires fundamental knowledge, like 1+1=2. Simplicity is the biggest challenge for me, because no one seems to like simple. They want an elaborate formula painstakingly derived after 10 years of schooling coming from a PhD and hundreds of published peer reviewed scientific papers. They want observations and evidence using the latest $30 billion tool, after trillions of dollars in grants to research it. They want the next e=mc^2. There is no patience or room for outsiders in this perpetual game.
Sorry, but from what I can see, science has little to do with discovery these days. It’s about turning nature into a usable product for resale. It’s also about fame and fortune and power. As the old adage goes, knowledge is power. The holy grail of science these days is fusion technology, because an endless supply of clean energy is the paramount of fame, fortune, and power. It will make a trillionaire out of someone, along with a Nobel prize, and absolute power over the supply of energy to the masses. That name will be immortalized in the annals of human history. Whatever country controls it will be a super power beyond comprehension. Whoever controls it wins the world over. I suppose control over gravity would be equal in stature.
I don’t mean to be so darn cynical, but I’m a staunch realist and a hardened pragmatist. I call bull when I see it. It’s mostly about virtue signalling, fame, money, and power, not the betterment of mankind necessarily. That’s a bonus side effect. Don’t kid yourself. There’s nothing wrong with making money, mind you. All for making money, but it’s a bit over-the-top at this point. Experiments are now in the billions or trillions of dollars measured over decades of steady work. With that kind of money flying around, corruption is a literal fact of the human species. To imagine that science is somehow exempt from corruption is naive, putting it politely.
In the end, I don’t have time to wait for the scientific machine to get out of its own way, and stow its ego and unabated hunger for more research dollars. I wanted to know this answer before my number was up. Science is not going to figure it out, because they’re too busy debating each other on who’s wrong and why they deserve to be awarded the grant dollars.
My answer, unfortunately for me, is free. There is no practical application that I can discern from it. It’s just an answer to a puzzle that’s been hanging out there, and it bugged me. I find it profound, but I have no clue where it could lead in solving other problems. Those things are beyond my skill set.
Our understanding of infinity is wrong, or misguided, or incomplete. Take your pick. I think I have relevant objective evidence to support this hypothesis or assumption. It’s something I’ve danced around and discussed several times, but the full scope of what I was saying hadn’t fully sunk in. I think it’s much more significant to this hypothesis than I fully realized.
in·fin·i·ty
noun
noun: infinity
-
Mathematics
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
I am specifically speaking on the important part of the definition above, not the colloquial meaning, which I didn’t bother posting. The latter is fine for works of fiction, poetry, philosophy, and casual conversation, but far too ambiguous for anything as serious as understanding the universe or scientific endeavor. To claim the universe is infinite or finite doesn’t mean much, as both are loosely defined at present.
As far as counting in the definition above, we can throw it out. Counting is a cognitive exercise unique to human beings, or possibly other intelligent life forms. How high we can count isn’t relevant to understanding the universe and becomes a counterproductive exercise in futility. To make an arbitrary claim that infinity can be defined mathematically as a number greater than our ability to count is, 1, conjecture, and 2, pointless. Who cares? That’s certainly not something that could be verified by any objective mathematical process, or objective measure, or observation. It is a naive and baseless claim in describing infinity. It’s certainly not a fact and completely unworthy of a mathematical definition. The human race can continue counting as long as it exists, making up new grunts or words to describe the next tier of digits. That doesn’t prove or mean anything relevant to reality.
Assignable quantities, well, that’s real. That means something when we’re talking about reality, unlike counting. It’s real in the sense that we’re applying numeric values to objectively real things, not an arbitrary redundant numbering system designed with logic to extend indefinitely. There is no end to counting, so a number greater than countable numbers is a somewhat absurd conjecture. There is not one iota of evidence that hints at the possibility of a number existing beyond counting. That definition transcends all rational thought and is simply nonsensical. The only limit to counting is our own mortality.
Why no one is questioning it is a fascinating puzzle to me.
Here’s the thing about quantities that might shed some light on infinity. No quantity of anything in the material universe can be expressed in finite terms. We can’t simply assign a finite quantity of 50 to a box of marbles, for example, without considering this from the deeper understanding that its true or real value is time dependent. Marbles aren’t going to be marbles forever. The universe is transformative. The quantity of marbles can only be understood based on the number we are creating versus the number that are being destroyed, as measured over time. That would yield a positive or negative value to describe the rate of change in the quantity of marbles, which would depend on the difference between the number of marbles entering and exiting our reality. Quantities do not remain finite or static over time. Of course in everyday life that’s not entirely relevant or useful, but we’re talking about understanding reality, not marbles. These subtle nuances we take for granted mean something much deeper than what’s seen on the surface.
We have never observed any quantity to be a static value in nature, although there are most certainly finite values that signify a transitional point from one state to another. Things move through these transitional points over time. These transitional points represent finite limits in how a state of matter can exist in time and space. Quantities of people aren’t static, planets aren’t static, stars aren’t static, black holes aren’t static, etc. etc. Every physical element in the universe is in transition to becoming something else or a part of something else. The whole idea of “assignable quantities” becomes a mute point, because the definition itself of assignable quantities is an incomplete concept in defining our true reality. All quantities in the universe are governed by a rate of change over time, and that value is either positive or negative. If the value is positive it leads to greater abundance of a thing, and if the value is negative, it leads to nothing or a 0 value. A number greater than any assignable quantity is relegated to word salad. It is utterly meaningless.
Infinity cannot be greater than any assignable quantity, because that statement itself is meaningless to reality, and/or incomplete, but it could be greater than or less than a rate of change applicable to all other things. Logically speaking, we know the maximum rate of change for all states is instantaneous over time, and the lowest rate of change is no change over time.
Can anyone tell me where this reasoning is invalid?
Infinity is a very special term with very unique and specific qualities. By definition it runs counter to finite, obviously, but like finite, it is not applicable to a specific value. To suggest it holds a specific value greater than all other values cognitively and physically, only gives us insight into human psychology. Cantor was a mathematician, who believed infinity was God, of course the numeric value of infinity had to exceed all comprehensible mathematical values in the universe. Infinity in Cantor’s mind was a value beyond approach and mathematical computation. It exceeded mankind’s understanding, because it was a divine value in nature which could not be revealed without the will of God. Its value was greater than all countable numbers, or assignable quantities. That definition pretty much says it all.
I am not trying to discredit his math in any way, and I know what I’m suggesting about Cantor is speculative to a degree, but facts are facts. It is on record that Cantor believed infinity was god. His utter obsession with values he viewed as “infinite” was driven by his belief in God. It is a fact. According to Cantor, God spoke to him and assigned him the task of revealing infinities to the world through his mathematics. It is also believed that Cantor suffered mental health issues.
I’m sure his work is meaningful to mankind, and I don’t mean to disparage religion, but his work has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of infinity. It just doesn’t. There is not an infinity of infinities, because fundamentally, quantities can only be understood as a rate of change over time. Mankind didn’t understand that back then. Infinity cannot be quantified anymore than finite can be quantified anymore than a box of marbles can be quantified, fundamentally speaking. Quantification’s are snapshots in time, or quantities related to time segments. There was 0 me in the year 1963. There was 1 me in 2023 at 11:07am EST on May 20th. We can predict there will be 0 me at some point in the future. As simple as the example I am using might be, it is scalable to any state of matter. Pause time while I exist and there is a finite number of me in the universe at that exact moment in time.
Infinity is comprehensible by human beings. We can understand it, exactly as we can understand finite. It is not beyond us, because it is exactly like finite in that it is an incalculable term. It’s not a math problem. It’s a logic problem. It is equal and opposite of finite.
Infinity and finite are two extremely important terms to wrap our heads around and understand, fully, as they relate to reality, because these two terms help us to understand the possible origin and/or destination of the universe. This is how we use these terms regularly. If the universe is determined finite, it has a beginning and will inevitably have an end. That not only forces us to consider a catalyst for the universe, it forces us to consider what is beyond the universe in all directions of space and time. And in a very interesting inquiry, it also forces us to consider what we are right now, because we are currently not finite. There is no term to describe the active state of the universe. At present, we cannot be finite or infinite, according to the current definition.
If the universe is determined to be infinite, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean there are an endless quantity of stars in the universe? Does it mean the universe is endless in extent?
Measurements are determined by material things as a point of comparison. Ultimately, an arbitrary property of matter, like length or velocity. We know there cannot be an endless quantity of any material substance, because quantities are governed by a rate of change over time, which is either a rising or falling value or rate of change. That impacts potential lengths, obviously, because there is a finite limit to all quantities at any given moment in time. Matter cannot be stretched across the universe end to end indefinitely, but it could continue to extend over time if the rate of increase overall is a positive value. We can conclude that the universe cannot be infinite in extent, because there is a finite limit to all matter in the universe at any given moment in time to fill it in a classically infinite manner. The reasoning and logic being, a finite quantity of matter would have to be spaced infinitely apart to fill an infinitely large universe. That is clearly NOT what we observe.
If you wanted to claim the aether defense on a case for an infinite quantity of matter, I would point out that black holes tend to destroy states of matter. Matter transforms into the singular fabric of the black hole. Considering all we observe is matter transforming into something else, I think it would be wise to assume with a high degree of certainty aether would also transform. It’s actually a law of physics, isn’t it? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
This brings me back to a thought experiment I’ve performed countless times over the decades in my efforts to understand the universe on the most fundamental level. The thought behind it is to try and comprehend what the universe isn’t, so we can better understand what it is. Simplifying the complexity becomes a crucial and necessary exercise.
Close your eyes, and imagine space without the notion of energy. There’s no matter, no light, no elementary particles, no motion, etc. Nothing else. Just an empty void.
The universe obviously is not a void now, but it could be a possible scenario or state of a universe that doesn’t or can’t exist. It makes the math very simple when nothing else exists but a void.
The first question to ask yourself is, how large is this void?
We’d be tempted to say infinite, but that would be wrong. And here’s the reasoning.
All measurements are derived from material substance, or things that exist within our universe. They are relative measurements. We use them to compare one thing to another. Infinity is defined as an incomprehensibly large quantity of things that are physically real to human beings. A meter for example, is based on a platinum bar sitting in a safe in paris. That’s the fundamental derivative of a meter. Motion is relative, so all measurements of motion are based on the motion of other things. Time is based on the orbit and rotation of Earth.
In the thought experiment, only a void exists. All the math and physics to describe that state have to be a derivative of what’s available from within it. We as the objective observer in this experiment are not allowed to use things from the universe from which we exist in, because those things do not exist in that state. We don’t even exist in it. That void can only be equal to itself, because it is the only thing relative to itself. It has almost nothing else to compare itself to, except the possible nonexistence of that void.
That void cannot move, because it occupies all of existence. There is nowhere for it to move. Motion becomes a meaningless concept. We’ll say M=motion. Its motion is absolute.
M=[0]
We’ll call the void space for simplicity’s sake. S=Space
The void, or space, being only comparable to itself, is 1 void in scale. It is also absolute, because it is neither positive nor negative. It simply exists. Yes, it is endless, and infinite from the colloquial meaning, but by all real measuring standards we use to define the void universe itself must be defined as a unit of itself, or 1, because that is the only unit of measure available to describe it mathematically.
S=[1]
We can verify this by imagining that not even a void existed. That value would by [0], or absolutely nothing. I find the absence of everything to be an irrational argument. There is always something, never nothing. We’re here as the empirical evidence to that fact. You cannot derive something from nothing, because 0≠1. Basic math principles. And then when you combine it with the laws of physics, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, existence must always be the case. The value of [1] is guaranteed. A state of matter can reduce to 0, but the universe, or space, must exist. Matter must be a derivative of the lowest denominator. [1]. We did not come from nothing. That’s false reasoning.
Time is the last thing to define in this thought experiment. We have to stay consistent with the way we define time in our universe. We could say time doesn’t exist in the void and give it a [0] to coincide with no [0] motion, but that’s wrong fundamentally. The faster we go in our universe the less time it takes to get where we’re going. To traverse the universe from one point to another instantaneously would take 0 time. Nothing can go faster than instantaneous, because it would arrive at the destination point before it moved. Clearly that’s false reasoning. Time is inversely proportional to motion. It is equal and opposite. When M=[0], times value must push to its furthest possible cycle, which is [1]. No change would occur.
T=[1].
Setting time aside for a moment, let’s put what we know about the experimental void universe into a logical math statement.
[0] < [1]
Right?
That’s what the void math to describe the universe would look like. Something is greater than nothing. So, let’s put this into our universe as we might understand it. Keeping in mind, [1] is the greatest value for a universe. It must be, right? We are not [0], and we are a derivative of something, or [1].
[0] < ∞ < [1]
I could keep going explaining an entirely new paradigm that would be eerily similar in nature to the Big Bang, without the bang. I have it all worked out in my head, but I think it would be information overload for too many people. Once you understand the infinite nature of the universe, the rest comes to you. It becomes comprehensible. You understand it. You can see the potential multiverse. You see what’s going on. You see the elegant simplicity of nature. You see the logic to it. The flood gates of understanding open.
The world can keep its colloquial meaning of infinity. There is an endlessness to the total universe. However, it doesn’t mean the universe is infinitely large in the static sense. It’s not that the idea of an infinite universe as we’ve devised it was wrong, it’s that we conceived of the entirely wrong infinite universe. Mainly driven by our ignorance in the meaning of infinity when relating it to scientific discovery. We assumed the universe was infinitely large in extent for several centuries. Olber’s paradox exemplifies the depth of our ignorance.
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
Static is a finite term, invalidating the paradox 6 words into the explanation. That’s the equivalent of describing a finite infinity, which is an obvious contradictory flaw in reasoning. And as I’ve pointed out, quantities are measured against time. There is no such thing as an “infinite” quantity in the flawed classical infinite sense. And you can’t really look at the universe from a standpoint of age. Things that age have an assumed beginning. Something can’t be infinitely old with a finite beginning, and without a beginning or end it is age neutral. Its age is right now. The moment. The universe would be persistently middle aged at best, neither old, nor young. I would think age would cancel out entirely from the total universe’s perspective. Every moment would be like a new universe. Ageless more or less.
The universe cannot be static. That was proven by Einstein. And as proven by Einstein, it cannot be finite, but no one realized that’s what he proved, including Einstein. Through deductive reasoning, the universe must be infinite. But like I said, no one has understood the meaning of infinity. We have assumed we knew what it meant for millennia.
What we got wrong was an applicable useful meaning of infinity which got wrapped up in a meaningless unproven and useless mathematical definition. The colloquial meaning isn’t very meaningful in understanding the universe. Sure, it means endless or limitless, but endless or limitless what exactly? It’s just a nonsense catch all phrase to describe everything we can’t prove or imagine easily. Infinite distance? I don’t think that makes sense, and I think all the evidence is against it. That certainly doesn’t disprove infinity, rather one possible aspect of it. Change makes sense. Change can easily be endless in nature, and change is what we observe. Infinity has always felt like an ongoing property to me. It always remains just out of reach the further we extend our hand. It is motion, time, and change. Not distance.
Infinity = constant of change
Finite = absence of change
That’s it in a nutshell.
There is very little doubt (99.99% certainty) in my mind that we live in an infinite universe. As long as I live, I am in an infinite state. I came into existence from a finite point of transition, and I am moving towards a finite point of transition on the way out. 1 >>> ∞ >>> 0. My existence is non-absolute.
-
-
4 Replies
-
I wanted to add this to the bottom of my post, but the site wouldn’t let me…
*****Addition*****
There is one thing I wanted to add.
There is a lot of talk surrounding aether on this forum. Doesn’t anyone find it strange that matter is so conveniently and consistently small while being limited in scale? Why isn’t an atom the size of a golf ball? That’s a puzzle.
As I have mentioned on this site before, everything is a derivative of space, because it is the only physically real element or ingredient available. Nothing else exists, physically. Space is existence. It is the motion of space that gives it observable dimension. With that in mind, it would stand to reason that physical matter propagates on a spectrum of scale, exactly like other spectrum’s we regularly discuss. Sure, there would have to be aether, and aether below that aether, etc, etc. The reason is, [0]<∞. Our universe is infinite. On the other hand though, it would also stand to reason that the spectrum of matter works in the opposite direction, because, ∞<[1].
We are tuned to small fraction of matter in the universe. Everything else exceeds our range of detection in either direction. The matter we use to observe the universe is precisely tuned to the matter within our spectrum of scale. Is there dark matter? No, not really. Matter is matter, so “dark matter” simply exists above our observational range on a different order of magnitude along the same spectrum of scale, like “aether” would sit below our observational range. I think there are multiverses superimposed above and below us. We don’t directly interact with them because they exist on a completely different spectrum of scale. The laws of physics are universal across the spectrum, because it’s all bound to the same spectrum of existence. There are no “hidden” dimensions. There is one spectrum that runs through the whole of the universe, and we only see a small segment of it. Our universe moves along the spectrum in lockstep with all the others, remaining just outside our observational range of detection. An atom could be the size of our observable universe, but we’d never know it.
Just a thought I wanted to get off my chest.
-
Hi @Andy ,
I can answer only to some of your questions…
-
Hi @Andy ,
I can answer only to some of your questions…
“…Why isn’t an atom the size of a golf ball? That’s a puzzle.”
There is a very close relationship between atoms and theyr dimensions: it depend from an exact mathematical function and the only dimensional parameter is dependent from: c (light speed) me (electron mass) alpha (fine stucture constant) and Z (atomic number).
All matter we know is made by Atoms and our instrumens and our body is made from atoms too, so if atom becames larger as a golf ball, all instruments and our body becames larger in the same scale, therefore we look atoms always in the same dimension because the ratio between all bodyes chenge always in the same scale.With regards to aether, it is of kindled interest because from it depends the costants mentioned above and therefore the atom structure.
Have a nice day,
Ing.___mm-
Thanks Marco…
As I suggest, matter/mass itself is bound to a spectrum, like light and sound for example. We tend to look inward to what we imagine as smaller than we can perceive particles, and speculate they exist in the form of aether. However, if we’re going to imagine matter exists beyond our range of observation in one direction, wouldn’t we have to consider the exact same phenomena in the opposite direction? Matter so large it is beyond our range of detection. What impact would that have on the observable universe, if any?
The core of what I’m talking about is infinity. Most people around here subscribe to an infinite universe as far as I know, as do I. However, what I’m questioning is the chosen model for an finite universe. It’s an old model, and one that has persisted for centuries, if not millennia. Everyone seems to be making the same assumption that infinity means endless in extent. And make no mistake about it, it is merely an assumption.
I see contradictions in this model that don’t hold up to basic fundamental logic. For instance, having static and infinity in the same breath is a logical contradiction. Static is a finite term, making a statically infinite universe a technically finite universe. It invalidates itself logically. Infinity has reached an infinite limit of scale? And if you apply the published definition, that is precisely (but erroneously) what it is defining. Infinity is a number that exists beyond counting and comprehensible quantities.
Infinity is limitless by the colloquial definition which kind of rules out the possibility of it being a physical number, irrespective of its possible size.
Infinity is dynamic, not static. Finite is static, not dynamic.
If the universe truly is infinite, than the totality of the universe must be in motion. It doesn’t necessarily have to equate to the concepts of expansion and/or inflation, but it could be extending its reach at C. The bigger the reach, the bigger the bigger the universe, and the smaller the pieces are within it comparatively.
I see an infinite universe as one in persistent motion. It would look exactly as if it came from an infinitesimal point of origin, but without a bang. I can imagine the observations looking exactly like a big bang. Every observation of the finite Big Bang theory would pretty much coincide with an infinite universe theory, once the old infinite universe model is corrected logically.
I think beyond the universe lies undisturbed space. It’s not a place that can be observed by any measure. The scope and scale of the universe is incomprehensible. We’d most likely have to wade through an endless supply of multiverses to find an edge. At the edge, I suspect the undisturbed space is cascading inward and forming fundamental matter way above the detectable spectrum within our universe.
Newton’s First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
There is no force beyond undisturbed space to act upon the total universe. On the bottom end, there is no force to act upon the collapse of matter.
The universe is persistent, not perpetual.
The universe has been moving in opposite directions forever, and there is no force beyond it in either direction to abate its motion. Acceleration is a constant, and deceleration is a constant. There is no beginning or end.
That’s the infinite universe as I see it. Basically.
Infinity is dynamic, and finite is static. There is no such thing as a static infinity, so the universe cannot be infinite in extent.
-
-
-