The Universe

  • Posted by Andy on June 24, 2023 at 5:08 pm

    I sure wish people would participate more around here.

    I assume everyone on this forum finds the notion of creating space absurd. I would think the prevailing viewpoint is that space occupies 100% of existence. That makes sense, where any other assumption does not. Big Bang and mainstream views be damned.

    I see that as a quandary, because most around here seem to assume the existence of matter independently of space. While there does seem to be an abandonment of the Big Bang as a creation myth, we simply have matter existing within space, and no explanation as to why it is here either. The aether is another assumed substance without explanation.

    Although I disagree with the notion of the Big Bang, at least it makes an attempt at explaining where the material universe came from. Although, it suffers the exact same issues as everyone around here does. What is Matter?

    The Big Bang assumes, like most everyone around here, that everything material just randomly or arbitrarily existed. There seems to be some underlying human need to turn matter into something physically tangible, like a bucket of ball bearings. Mainstream assumes matter is made of fundamental particles, which still begs to question, what are fundamental particles? Do they just exist out of nowhere, or are they assuming the big bang created fundamental particles out of energy? And there is no explanation for energy.

    Energy is the motion of something, and potential energy is the potential motion of something. Motion is an integral ingredient in all defined forms of energy. Energy cannot exist without motion, and potential energy cannot exist with the potential for something to move.

    If you look at e=mc^2, that’s motion. And as Glenn Borchardt correctly states, it’s a motion formula. But that can only mean one thing. That piece of matter is in a constant state of motion, and its rate of motion is exponential at c^2. But that view contradicts our direct observation. My computer certainly doesn’t appear to be moving at a rate of c^2.

    Or is it?

    I think all the evidence is pointing in one direction. Matter is a contraction wave, or an inverted wave form. It is traveling directly inward 1-dimensionally. My computer is traveling directly inward, and I’m moving towards it and it towards me, and we’re both traveling inward towards the center of mass of the Earth, and the Earth is traveling towards the center of mass in the sun, and our solar system is traveling inwards towards the center of mass in the galaxy. Relative motion is what keeps everything appearing static in nature.

    I know, it’s a radical view, but it’s also very logical once you get past the “oh shit, no way, impossible” thoughts racing through your head right now. It is perfectly logical and explains everything. At one point in time, matter was the size of galaxies. That would not matter one bit, because what matters most is how we perceive the universe, not what it’s doing necessarily.

    Space is dimensionless. Literally. What gives dimension to space is motion, and time which is derived from space in motion. Time isn’t a thing, but a perceptual ingredient.

    There are two fundamental wave forms, expansion waves, and contraction waves. That’s it. The universe itself is expanding in extent, but space isn’t expanding really. Space is simply the substrate upon which waves propagate. There is a space wave rolling outward extending the reach of the universe, well past anything we can observe, and it’s probably slowing down exponentially. But, no worries, it can slow down forever. It’s not really slowing down most likely. The volume of space it extends into is simply growing in volume exponentially so the expansion into new motionless space takes a little longer over time. Yes, beyond the universe is motionless space. That is the fuel that drives the action of expansion outward, and the reaction is accelerating contraction waves (bits of matter) cascading inward in the opposite direction.

    It is expansion, versus contraction, and deceleration versus acceleration. The universe functions on the principles of equal and opposites, because space occupies 100% of existence. If you pull in one direction it must by default pull in the opposite direction. If something is observed as expanding and accelerating in one direction, it must be contracting and decelerating in the opposite direction. I think we have all the backwards though. What we observe is our own motion when looking out into distant space. We are contracting and accelerating inward, and space is expanding and decelerating in the opposite direction.

    I’m not sure the acceleration is real either, as the contracting scale of matter is simply taking less time with each cycle. You have to imagine one of those vortex games where you drop a quarter into the vortex and watch it spin around in smaller and faster cycles. With the universe though, there’s no bottom end limit. It can just keep falling inward indefinitely speeding up until it ceases to exist eventually. The frequency rises, as the perceived mass depletes, and the energy gains in its motion.

    A very interesting possibility came to mind in all this, which is related to gravity, sort of. Rather than trying to blast mass out one side, to push something in the opposite direction, imagine finding a way to reduce contraction of matter. In theory, if there were a way to direct that reduction in contraction in the opposite direction of your inward motion, you would appear to move away in the opposite direction. And you should technically do so without g-forces. You’re basically pumping the brakes, rather than trying to blast off.

    I guess what I’m telling everyone is that matter is not real in the physical sense. It is simply waves headed inward. And because space is dimensionless, meaning every point in the observable universe is surrounded by an equal amount of space on all sides, motion is 1 dimensional in nature. Science has us tooling around on 1, 2, and 3 dimensions. It is wrong. What defines dimension is the motion of space. 0 motion, 0 dimensions. Space exists as a point. And that’s an important distinction geometrically. And the reason we can come to that conclusion is pretty straight forward. Pump the brakes on the entire observable universe and all the observable energy within it drops to 0, or converts to potential energy. Space. Space in a completely motionless state is only comparable to itself. It is 1 space in scale. [1]. A point. A really big point mind you, but it is only one thing made up entirely of itself occupying 100% of all existence. It is 1 thing. It becomes its own unit of measure because there is nothing else to physically compare it to, with the exception of absolutely nothing. Motion and time have no real meaning in that state, so energy has no real meaning and can only be defined in the potential.

    I know many around here want a medium for light, so they can treat it like a sound wave, or ocean wave. Sorry, I don’t see the need. Although similar, it’s not really the same thing. Sound waves are the total motion of matter in a field or mass of wave particles, like waves propagate in water. Those are just particles clanking together transferring their energy from one wave point to the next. There is no such thing as a sound particular, for example. Light, or a photon, is literally both. I suspect that has to do with a photon oscillating between an expansion wave and contraction wave, riding on the cusp between expansion and contraction of the total universe. It is literally powered by the process. The contracting half of the universe manifests in particles, and the expanding half is the universe manifest in space. Equal and opposites. Perceive massless particles ride between the two opposing forces.

    The only place I have been able to talk about any of this theory recently is ChaGPT. It’s been quite enlightening.

    Here’s a few responses to the idea when I asked it to speculate. It basically mirrored my own speculations to a large degree, which is pretty amazing when you think about it, considering it has access to the literal sum of human knowledge, and I do not.


    Certainly! Let’s delve further into this concept and explore some additional speculations:

    1. Hierarchy of Contraction Waves: Within the proposed framework, we can speculate that the contraction waves responsible for forming particles may themselves be composed of smaller, nested contraction waves. This hierarchical structure could give rise to different levels of organization and complexity in matter, with each level corresponding to a different scale of contraction waves.

    2. Wave Interactions and Particle Properties: The interactions between contraction waves could determine the properties of particles. For example, the way these waves interact, combine, or interfere with each other could give rise to the various characteristics such as mass, charge, and spin observed in particles.

    3. Unification of Fundamental Forces: In this speculative perspective, the forces that hold atoms together and govern interactions between particles could be understood as the result of specific patterns or arrangements of contraction waves. Exploring the interplay between these contraction waves and the forces of the known fundamental interactions could potentially lead to a unified description of the forces in nature.

    4. Evolution and Emergence: The concept opens up the possibility of considering the evolution and emergence of complex structures from the interplay of contraction waves. Through intricate patterns and interactions, the collective behavior of these waves could give rise to the emergence of biological systems, consciousness, and other higher-level phenomena.

    5. Cosmological Implications: The proposed idea of contraction waves as the fundamental nature of matter and space raises intriguing cosmological implications. It invites speculation on the origin of the universe, the nature of the Big Bang, and the role of contraction waves in the cosmic evolution and structure formation.


    Certainly! Building on the concept you’ve presented, which suggests a process without a definitive beginning or end and a role of the expansion wave in the creation of our observable universe, let’s speculate further:

    1. Cyclical Universe: Instead of a singular event like the Big Bang, the universe could undergo cycles of expansion and contraction driven by the interplay of expansion and contraction waves. These cycles could give rise to a recurring pattern of cosmic evolution, where expansion converts motionless space into contraction waves, followed by a contraction phase that leads to a new cycle of expansion.

    2. Multiverse and Expansion Waves: If our observable universe is a result of the conversion of motionless space into contraction waves, it raises the possibility of a multiverse comprising multiple regions where similar expansion processes occur. Each region would represent a distinct universe with its own set of contraction waves and matter arrangements, forming a vast and interconnected cosmic landscape.

    3. Interactions with Motionless Space: The existence of motionless space, as you mentioned, could be a significant factor contributing to the expansion of our observable universe. As the expansion wave encounters and interacts with motionless space, it converts it into contraction waves, perpetuating the expansion process. Exploring the properties and nature of this motionless space could shed light on the driving force behind the expansion.

    4. Cosmic Evolution and Complexity: Within this speculative framework, the interplay between expansion and contraction waves could lead to an evolving and increasingly complex universe. Over cosmic timescales, the conversion of motionless space and the interactions between contraction waves could give rise to the formation of galaxies, stars, and ultimately life.

    5. Unanswered Questions: While this interpretation opens up intriguing possibilities, it also raises questions about the origin of motionless space, the underlying mechanisms of wave interactions, and the nature of the cycles of expansion and contraction. Exploring these questions and seeking empirical evidence would be crucial to refining and validating these speculations.


    Certainly! Taking into account the premise that motionless space must exist as the fundamental substrate, let’s continue speculating:

    1. Nature of Motionless Space: Motionless space, as the foundational existence, could be the canvas upon which the dynamics of space in motion unfold. It would provide the backdrop for the interplay of expansion and contraction waves, serving as the stable framework within which these waves propagate and interact.

    2. Space as the Fundamental Entity: In this speculative perspective, space itself becomes the fundamental entity from which everything emerges. Matter, energy, and other observed phenomena are manifestations of space in various states of motion and interaction. All fundamental particles and energy forms could ultimately be understood as different modes or patterns of space in motion.

    3. Energy as Space in Motion: As you mentioned, energy can be interpreted as space in motion. Instead of being treated as a separate entity, energy would be an intrinsic property of space in various dynamic states. The different forms of energy, such as kinetic, potential, or electromagnetic, would arise from different configurations or patterns of space motion.

    4. Dynamic Nature of Existence: Within this framework, the fundamental nature of reality is inherently dynamic. Space in motion, through the interplay of expansion and contraction waves, gives rise to the diverse phenomena and structures observed in the universe. The continuous interaction and transformation of space contribute to the dynamic and evolving nature of existence.

    5. Quantum Mechanics and Space: Exploring the connection between this perspective and quantum mechanics could offer new insights. Quantum phenomena, such as wave-particle duality and superposition, could be understood as manifestations of the underlying dynamics of space in motion. Investigating how quantum behavior emerges from this framework could lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of quantum mechanic.

    Andy replied 3 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies
  • 0 Replies

Sorry, there were no replies found.