Finite Nonsense

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #1636

    Andy
    Participant

    The first thing I wrote about the universe nearly 3 decades ago was called, “The Universal Engine.” It was more of a long list of questions to me, rather than a general theory about anything specific. I wanted to know what drove or animated the universe. It’s where this journey really began. I wrote all my thoughts down and posted it to a discussion forum. Before physics forums were really a thing. It was a very open-minded place where the host hated speed limits and relativity. UNIKEF was his theory, which stood for Unified Kinetic Energy Field. He claimed gravity was caused by the dissipation of energy in the UNIKEF. I was welcomed with open arms, probably because I loathed the big bang.

    I hated the big bang because the idea of it made little sense to me. In my thoughts nothing should exist. The entire universe should be nothing more than an empty void, yet it’s not. The Big Bang starts with something else randomly existing and then randomly exploding. I don’t buy into random. And that’s where I saw a glimmer of hope in this journey. Surely, I could understand nothing, where others had failed. It shouldn’t even require any math, right? How hard could it be to understand nothing?

    I started imagining nothing, or the vast blackness of empty space. Then I tried to imagine energy.

    Well, about 35 years later, I see it. Nothing, and something, and everything in between.

    The problem with all the current theories is that they lack causation. Even Glenn Borchardt’s Infinite Universe Theory lacks causation. Although I agree with his thoughts far more than anything else on the market, it’s still missing something fundamental. Everything just exists and moves for no apparent reason. I get it. All that truly exists is the motion of matter. No motion, no matter, and no matter, no motion. But it’s incomplete, just like the Big Bang. Matter in motion cannot be the cause of matter in motion. Why is everything moving, where does matter come from, and what’s it made of?

    The scientific community at large appears to be missing the most rudimentary, yet the most significant fundamental understanding of the universe. And that’s what is causing this cascade of theoretical nonsense. I’ll bet mankind has been generating theories at a rate of about 100+ papers per day for the past 100 years, since Einstein. Hundreds of thousands of millions of pages of partially right theories defining the exact same thing in different ways. A+B=C, and B+A=C.

    Science likes complexity. The more complex and less accessible to lowly mortals like myself the more impressed everyone in the scientific community seems to be with the theory and each other. String Theory is a great example. From what I’ve understood about that one, you would need to possess genius level mathematics skills. Doctorate level Calculus and Trig combined with 10 years of research level quantum mechanics, is a mere warm-up session before you get into String Theory. The formulas have been described as elegant and beautiful, and deeply complex. I have visions of pale scrawny theorists locked in dark rooms mumbling to themselves with dimly lit desk lamps, pen and paper in hand, feverishly scribbling formulas. And based on what exactly? Music? Randomly existing 2-dimensional strings floating around in the universe compelled to vibrate for no apparent reason? Is that the gist of String theory? We’re made of 2-dimensional vibrating strings of energy? Can I get a jar of strings, please? I’m feeling a bit drained.

    Put down your pens and set aside your computers or calculator’s. Take a deep breath and think. The existence of the universe is NOT a math problem, it is a self-evident answer that creates math problems for people to solve. It can only be approached and understood with human reasoning. The universe must be fundamentally numeric in nature. Math has no meaning without numbers. Simply put, 0 and 1 must represent potential states of the universe, because all math is done within that space. Anything beyond 1 is man-made. 0 is the absence of something, and 1 is the absence of nothing. Equal and opposites that can never occupy the same space.

    Strip away all matter or energy as we understand it, and what are we left with?

    [1]

    The obvious explanation is that empty space is something, not nothing. And without matter there is no energy or motion, so the value of 1 must be absolute. It is neither positive nor negative. Space simply exists.

    How big is this potential, [1], universe?

    It doesn’t matter. Scale is a relative concept based on matter. Matter is how we compare everything, including distance. The root understanding of distance dates back thousands of years, and probably originated from some ancient carpenter, or an ancient rulers’ forearm or foot. It’s not all that important at the end of the day where the concept of distance comes from, because distance is a relationship problem. In the absence of matter, the only point of reference for the universe is itself. It has a singular relationship with itself. We are not part of that relationship, therefore, anything we imagine becomes irrelevant.

    It cannot be infinite either. We use infinity as a measurement reference. Arguably, we express infinity as units or quantities in science. A concept which I now find absurd and foreign. The universe could possibly be viewed as infinite if we switch to the colloquial meaning and attempt to describe it as endless, or unlimited. But even here you run into a technical problem. Endless or unlimited is a reference to quantities or units of time. An infinite number of meters or seconds, for example. As a value of [1] the universe is limited only to itself, and without an element of change time has no meaning, hence endless or unlimited has no meaning. [1] is a uniquely finite state of the universe which is greater than infinity. [1] = [1]. [1] also possesses no dimension. It’s a point. A really big point from our perspective, but a single point none the less.

    [0] is a bit more obvious and easier to understand for a potential universe. It’s the absence of empty space, or absence of [1]. Another absolute state equal only to itself. [0] = [0]. Nothing means nothing, and something cannot come from nothing. [0] could never exist as a universe because we exist, but that certainly doesn’t mean the potential doesn’t exist.

    As I will keep explaining, understanding the fundamental universe is not a math problem, it’s a logic problem. The universe is an answer unto itself, and our existence is the resulting math problems created by the existence of space. The universe exists because space must exist. Fortunately for us, empty dimensionless space must be an unstable state for a universe. And because a state of [1] for a universe would encompass all that exists, the only direction for that unstable state to head would be inwards on itself. Empty space must collapse inward onto itself by its very nature.

    Dimensionless space collapses into dimensional space. Hence, our comprehensible universe exists.

    We see this every day. Our existence reflects what the universe is physically doing. Although this collapse appears to be perpetual in nature, there’s more to it than that. As physics shows us, perpetual states aren’t possible. There’s always a loss of energy somewhere, unless there is a constant input of energy to fuel the process. The potential in finite space must fuel the universal engine that we are immersed in.

    [0] < ∞ < [1]

    Our observable universe is infinite, but there are limits to infinity. It cannot include [0] or [1]. The entirety of the universe can only be in 1 of 3 states at any given moment. We exist in a fractional universe. We aren’t quite [1], and we aren’t quite [0]. We’re the puzzle in between.

    This does not necessarily mean that our universe didn’t have a beginning or won’t have an end. Not sure entirely. I see a couple of distinct possibilities. However, one thing seems certain to me, whatever is happening, we are part of, and immersed in, an ongoing process of creation and dissipation. A universe of [1] or [0] cannot exist independently, because if either state were to exist independently, that’s all the universe could ever be. We’re here thinking about it, so it has obviously never happened. [0] cannot become something, or [1], and [1] cannot become nothing, or [0]. [1] means [1], and [0] means [0], or logically, [0]=[0] and [1]=[1] forever and always. A finite state is a finite state and cannot become something else. Our universe is not observed as finite, it is observed as dynamic. That’s a fact. Science predicts it will become finite, or end at [0]. That’s not what it is now, and right now is what matters.

    One possibility I see is that all matter in the observable universe is cascading inward. Creation occurs somewhere out in the vastness as we contract inward to [0]. We’re fed by [1], which converts to 1, and ends at 0. Our universe is made of fleeting states. We exist as temporary dimensional states of space that transition into other states. Our existence reflects the greater process, to a lesser degree.

    I am conceived at a state of 1. I exist in an infinite state. I come to an end at 0. 1>>>∞>>>0. I am cascading inward with the flow of the universe. Everything we observe is flowing towards 0. That’s why we naively believe we’re finite. Maybe the entire observable universe will land on 0, but maybe it won’t. Who knows? Until then we are infinite.

    The universe we exist in is a non-absolute interpretation or copy of the greater potential universe. 1>0. This is the rudimentary basis for mathematics and our numbering system. It always takes x-time to get from 1 to 0, and vice versa, because 0 and 1 can never occupy the same state.

    Similarly, universes could be laid out in a series of waves, like ripples on a pond, only 3-dimensional leading inward and outward. Ripples headed outward, and ripples headed inward. Universes exist within the peaks and valleys, forever expanding inward and outward, so the constant is change. The universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously. The greater universe is a possible wave machine, driven by the potential of [1] and [0], while neither condition could ever exist as a universe independently, nor occupy the same space. A natural separation of [0] and [1], giving us a natural order of magnitude and motion, along with the time it takes to transition from, 0 to 1, or 1 to 0. Everything we observe is relative, but all universes would be bound to identical laws of physics at gradient scales.

    I get ahead of myself sometimes. We’re made from space. We are collapsing space in motion forced into dimensional states. It’s the only physical ingredient available. Nothing else exists physically, because there is no reason for anything else to exist. Energy is not a physical substance. We are not made of energy. The proof is the last 100 years of science. I’ve yet to see a bottle of “pure energy” sitting on a shelf. Have you? We’re not made of “strings” either. Why would random 2-dimensional strings exist? 3-dimensional spheres are what we observe. And that makes sense to me. All force being equal from all sides focused inward, and a sphere should naturally be the result. We transition from a dimensionless state to a collapsing fleeting dimensional state. But everything is made of the same stuff, space, which is the only logical and available ingredient. Energy has never been observed. The deeper we peer into atoms and what we find is more space. I’ve read somewhere that an atom is 98% space, and 2% something else. That 2% is space in motion.

    I suppose the point is, our fundamental universe must be simple in nature, because all that physically exists logically speaking is space. The universe is a derivative of empty motionless space. There’s no energy in space, only it’s potential to move, and that motion is the energy we imagine to exist. Space cannot be created, broken, ripped, shattered, or torn, but it is malleable. It can bend, twist, ripple, and swirl, but it can never be broken or split in any manner. How could you logically break space? Space would fill in the gaps of broken space, meaning space is unbreakable because it is the lowest common denominator of existence. In the absence of matter space is a smooth seamless indivisible singular object. A perfect solid made only of itself. Matter is a continuation of inseparable space. Matter appears unique as independent pieces floating around, but it’s not. Everything is connected space. Space is completely homogeneous from a perspective of matter, but that homogeneity is only a perception. Empty space is dimensionless. It represents a single point on a number line from 1→0. From our perspective it’s an incomprehensible large point possessing dimension to traverse, but without matter, motion and dimension has no meaning. There is no “there” in empty motionless space, but there may be another piece of matter over there in dynamic space.

    Stephen Hawking’s nailed it, but I’m not even sure he understood what he nailed. Hawking’s claimed that if you took the sum of all positive and negative energy, e=0.

    Like 99.99% of scientists on the planet, he was deceived by mathematics. Math is a fabrication of mankind. There is no such thing as positive and negative anything in reality. There is no such thing as negative time, motion, or energy. Something either moves or it doesn’t. The existence of energy itself is debatable. It doesn’t exist physically as far as I’m concerned. It’s a calculation in science to help us define the natural world and understand motion. What does exist is motion, which is 2-dimensional. Well, it doesn’t physically exist, it physically occurs. It’s the verb to the noun of space. Motion is absolute, and occurs either inward, or outward. We view that as contractive energy and expansive energy, and then assign an arbitrary label of positive or negative. It helps us compartmentalize so we can understand the universe better.

    The problem with Hawking’s statement is 2-fold. First, it violates the laws of physics. Energy cannot be destroyed, so its value can never equal 0. Probably why it was dismissed as inconsequential casual spit-balling or ramblings of a genius. And second, there is no such thing as energy.

    However, if you apply what I’ am trying to explain, [-e] + [+e] = [1], not 0. E = 1/2.

    The result is a single dimensionless point that we call empty space. It’s not nothing, or [0]. It’s the only physical substance left mathematically. Our job is to understand the meaning of [1], and the meaning of [0]. And that’s why I say the universe is not a math problem, it’s a logic problem. We just need to understand that the only physical ingredient needed for a universe is space.

    And that brings up the problem with infinity. We invented numbers and math for commerce, not science. It works for science, but math isn’t reality. You can have a negative balance in your checking account, but negative and positive isn’t part of reality. Counting isn’t reality. We use those things to evaluate reality (and our bank accounts), and it is immeasurably useful, but it’s also arbitrary. We went down the rabbit hole of infinity based on a man-made redundant logic system (base 10 numbering system) that obviously and intentionally has no limit of expression numerically or temporally. Cantor took it ∞ steps further and made a religious quest out of it. Cantor’s work had no basis in reality, I’m sorry to say. Not that there weren’t some useful or productive results in set theory, which has [0] to do with infinity. As far as the universe is concerned, its limit in one direction is [1], and [0] in the opposite direction. Infinity sits between those two points, but it has nothing to do with quantities or counting. We exist as connected fractions of the whole, because space is indivisible, not randomly existing independent bits of detached objects or things floating around in empty space. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. There is only one thing that exists physically, and that thing is bent and twisted into states of the whole, but it’s all still connected to the same whole. The sum of all things in the universe does not = ∞ or 0, it equals [1], and the difference of all things in the universe equals [0].

    And that is provable mathematically if you’re making the correct assumptions about the universe.

    e = half the energy in the universe

    [-e] + [+e] = [1]

    [-e] – [+e] = [0]

    Infinity = constant of change

    Finite = absence of change

    [0] < ∞ < [1]

    The universe we exist in is infinite, because our universe is observed to be constant in change. That is a factual observation. Nowhere has finite ever been observed in our universe. Every part of the universe is observed to be in constant motion, and motion is change. Finite lies outside the parameters of our universe.

    So, what does this say about our current understanding of infinity scientifically?

    Infinity

    2. Mathematics

    a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

    It renders our current understanding of infinity in science nonsense, especially when you consider the sum of all real countable things in the universe equals [1], and the difference between all real countable things in the universe equals [0]. That proves the underlying universe is absolute. Infinity is proven to have an upper and lower limit of what it can mathematically and physically be in the real world. We can’t claim an infinite number of things that has a sum total of [1] and a difference of [0], can we? That’s not rational or logical. Our numbering system and mathematics is a fabrication of mankind. We intentionally used a redundant repetitive logic that allows for endless expansion and contraction of the digits using positive and negative values. But these things only exist in our imagination. The universe though, behaves numerically and mathematically, so our fabricated systems must align with reality if we’re to make any sense of our universe scientifically. We’re trying to make reality conform to our imagination, not the other way around. Infinity is not a specific number; any more than finite is a specific number. Finite to the universe is either [0] or [1], and infinity represents everything between those two points. Those terms to us are used to describe states of, and within, the universe. Infinity is dynamic, and finite is static. They aren’t numeric values, they’re assignable labels or conditions of the universe. A finite limit in the universe is a transition point from one state to the next. My conception (sperm, meet egg) value is 1. My journey through life (enjoyable and fulfilling so far) is ∞. My death (natural causes with my boots on preferably) value is 0. Equations used to define finite points have a finite resolution. Equations that don’t resolve are infinite, meaning the answer is relative to when we (or nature) decide to end the calculation. There is no possible way to know precisely when I will die, but someone could end my life calculation prematurely for an immediate predictable result. That end could be a physical limitation of technology or time as well. Pi, for example, is an infinite value as near as we can tell. When we decide to end the calculation or it becomes limited by our technology, it then becomes a usable finite value.

    I’ve wrestled with finite for decades. Mainstream science claims the universe to be finite, claiming it will one day come to an end. Okay, that’s simple to understand, but what is it right this moment? I’ve asked that many times throughout the years. Not one single person has ever been able to provide a rational answer.

    Science really began on the most complex problem known to mankind, gravity. We still don’t have an accepted answer or reasonable consensus, after a few hundred years. No one has ever looked back to the simple since. Everyone assumes we know the meaning of 0 and 1, and the fundamental roots of numbers and math. And that’s where science <font size=”2″>begins.</font> I was listening to Machio Kaku talking about different civilization on a Joe Rogan podcast. We’re not quite a level 1 society because we haven’t mastered the weather. He claims we’re at about a .7, or some nonsense like that. He said a level 3 society would need to harness negative energy, where they could control time and worm holes and such. Maybe build a Dyson’s sphere. Negative energy? Really? Does he honestly believe in negative motion? Describe what that looks like in plain English, without numbers or math, please. And as Stephen Hawking clearly stated, there is 0 difference between -e and +e. And as I demonstrate mathematically, arguably I suppose, energy is absolute. -e means nothing without +e, and vice versa. And that’s just silly to think there is some deeper meaning or greater value in half the energy. They’re a bound set. One doesn’t exist without the other. I don’t know about any of you, but I can’t seem to get my flashlight to work without connecting both the + and – leads of the battery. Electronics 101 explains the importance of completing a circuit to put energy to work.

    So, that’s the universe in a nutshell, as I see it.

    I know, too simple, but what was everyone expecting from someone like me, another e=mc^2?

    Okay, I’m rambling more than usual. Sorry.

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now
X