[Andy]

“However, multiple universes are redundant, and not entirely important
to consider beyond our universe. They would be identical in nature, if
they do truly exist, rippling inward and outward to the furthest
reaches of existence.”

As a side note, I’ve always had this nagging suspicion that we’re entangled with redundant universes. They would literally be identical to ours, with a slight offset in timing in either direction, forward and backward. I’ve pondered the possibility that memories are bound to entanglement, and that’s how they work. It’s sort of a hybrid many worlds interpretation, although linear in nature, and not infinite so much. The further back we look in time, mentally that is, the further back in the ripple of universes we go along an entangled chain of memories. Deja Vu could actually be a short glimpse into the future. I personally have had some extremely vivid deja vu experiences in my life. They’re really hard to wrap your head around. Feels like a 5 second glimpse into the future and usually persists for several seconds. It’s always been more than a simple feeling of familiarity to me, which is how it is often defined. I experience short predictions of what’s about to be said or happen, and that’s beyond familiar feelings. Kind of leaves you in a state of awe when you’re lucky enough to experience one.

Anyway, that’s just some random side thoughts I’ve considered. Probably nothing there, but the who the hell knows for sure, right?

[Andy]

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.

[Andy]

Jerry, I saw your other post. I hear you.

My views about the universe are unique and foreign. They are also very rudimentary. I try not to get hung on minutia. Aether for example, is of little concern to me. Is it real? Probably. I always come back to the same question. Whether it exists or not is immaterial to me, because I’m not trying to solve any particular problem. I’m not trying to define gravity. I’m not trying to build a rocket ship. On some levels I don’t even care about gravity.

Yet.

I’m trying to understand what the universe is, and what it’s made of. I’m looking for a top level understanding in how the universe works on the most fundamental level. I’m trying to understand what drives its motion.

Where did all this stuff come from?

Matter doesn’t randomly exist for no reason. With that being the most fundamental question one could ask, what animates us?

Suppose someone convinces me the aether exists, and atoms are made of aether particles. I still have to ask, what’s aether made of? Suppose I get the answer that aether is made of smaller aether particles. What’s that made of?

It’s this never ending rabbit hole. There has to be a physical raw material.

The void or emptiness of space is one of the most interesting properties of existence to imagine. Think about it. It would be made entirely of itself. A perfectly seamless fluid but dimensionless solid so to speak. Its homogeneous nature would be incomprehensible. Insert a spaceship into that state. Motion, distance, scale, etc., has absolutely no meaning. As big as you think you are, you are infinitely less than a grain of sand, but infinitely larger in comparison. It’s a huge paradoxical existence when there is no other frame of reference. The concept of motion within empty space is meaningless. Would we experience g-forces from acceleration in a void state? I don’t know, but it would answer a lot of questions if we did or didn’t, right? I suspect motion is instantaneous to any point within a void, but actually going anywhere is irrelevant due to its unimaginable homogeneity.

I suspect there is a lot of incalculable answers in that empty space. Only human reason can touch it.

I’m just rambling.

I heard you in your deleted post. I wasn’t ignoring your replies. I was just trying to explain my view from different perspectives until you possibly understood it fully. Maybe no one will. I do.

[Andy]

Out of curiosity, is there any sort of wave theory behind the coulomb force?

[Andy]

“There is also the type of space that I personally subscribe to, that is
“empty”, or a void, that either is or isn’t filled with physical
objects and their interactions.’

The issue I’ve always struggled with is the concept of “physical objects.” What does that mean? The commonly accepted narrative laid out in the scientific dogma is that everything is made of energy. And that narrative permeates our global cultural knowledge base as a pseudo-fact, which we see in such things as Star Trek, or Star Wars, or ghost shows, etc. The idea of “Pure Energy” is casually tossed around in science and culture as if it’s a known scientific fact. We’re all made of energy, right?

But you take a deep dive into the real science and what you discover is that there is 0 evidence for the physical existence of energy. None. And the more you look the more you realize that energy’s existence is far less likely.

The word “energy” gets tossed around a lot. We even have many flavors of energy. Dark energy is just one of many, to go along with mass energy, and “mass energy” is equivalent to the real deal “energy”.

In my assessment after nearly 40 years of trying to find answers, I conclude there is no such thing as energy. It’s a myth. It’s not real. It’s a calculation, nothing more.

With that being the case, what is a physical object? It’s not built on energy, which is clear to me.

Space is the only real thing remaining. And that thing we imagine as a void is the only physically real thing we have to experience a comprehensible universe. And if you really think about, we should not exist. The entire universe should be an empty void, because there is no logical reason for anything to exist but a void, short of magic.

The inevitable conclusion I come to is, “space” is the most fundamental physical ingredient of our existence. Space is the only thing that physically exists, and matter is a manifestation of dimension within space, which allows for the independent motion of bits of space. Matter is made of 99% space, and that 1% unknown is the transition of motion from one velocity to another. We experience motion which is really what we define as energy in our calculations. Motion doesn’t physically exist, it occurs. Motion is a state of space which occurs between 0 and 1. And that’s a wide range.

And that’s where I’m at after 40 years.

The universe is infinite, but infinity is the constant of change, where finite is the absence of change. Quantities are dynamic, and scale is relative. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. The universe is infinite, but also limited by the upper limit of [1], and a lower limit is [0].

Why would we assume we’ve understood the meaning of infinity all these millennia? It has never been defined scientifically, and its mathematical definition is absurd nonsense. Infinity is not a specific number anymore than finite is a specific number. Finite and infinity define the state of the entire universe. Finite represents a universe without motion or change, where infinity represents a universe with motion and change. And that reflects in our mathematics and numbering system as static values and dynamic values.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

Our existence is a reflection of finite points and dynamic values. A state of matter can have a beginning and an end, but the whole of the universe is defined by the constant of change. The universe cannot exist as a finite state, or we would have never existed to observe it. We are the empirical evidence for an infinitely existing universe undergoing continual change, without a beginning or end. The potential for either finite state exists, but that potential is infinite and will not occur.

[Andy]

Been a while since I’ve posted anything.

“Empty space cannot exist”

I’m not so sure about that. In my view space is the only thing that physically exists. Empty space has a very unique property of being an unbreakable malleable perfect solid through and through. It is a completely unified state void of , edges, or dimension. And if something lacks dimension, it must inherently lack scale. In a universe lacking matter its total value can only be described mathematically as [1]. A single point. It’s not something that could be observed, because it lacks parts, physical structure and motion.

I don’t think whether empty space exists or not is a serious question. It is not the right way to look at it, in my humble opinion. Empty space is a potential state of the universe, not really an observable element or object independent of matter. That state can only exist sans the observable universe we’re trying to comprehend. The universe we exist in is a unique state of space, because it contains motion, and to have motion you must have unique definable dimensions, or parts, or matter.

Logically there is no reason for anything else to exist but space. Space is a permanent feature of the total universe. The universe can never equal [0], because that implies the absence of space. Logically, that makes no sense. Empty space is akin to a void. Voids cannot be removed, as their removal would be a filled by a void.

It’s very easy to imagine this empty void state of space as endless or infinite. Infinity as we define it in science, arguably (and absurdly) in my opinion, is a unit of measure. We refer to infinite quantities, infinite distances, infinite time, etc., which are all based on arbitrary units of measure. Something tangible has to exist to comprehend the meaning of infinity from our unique perspective, because infinity is a comparison state to things we comprehend as finite. If the universe were a state of empty space the only thing tangible is space itself. Space would only be equal to itself in comparison, so it’s value is only definable in finite terms. Empty Space = [1], because ES=ES, and its state would be singular and absolute. That’s the logical comparative statement.

But the argument here is whether empty exists now. And my argument is that empty space is a potential state, not a thing. It’s not whether it exists, it is whether or not the universe can achieve that singular state.

In my opinion, fundamentally, our universe can only be in 1 of 3 possible states, but never at the same time.

U = [1]

U = ∞

U = [0]

We can deduce logically that, U=[0], is an impossibility. The absence of a void results in a void.

We can also deduce logically, arguably of course, [1] is an impossibility. The reason I say this is because space without parts (matter,) or dimension, or motion, the universe would lack the fundamental properties of physics to allow for anything to happen. If U=[1], that’s all it could ever be. It would have achieved perfection in its existence. It would become a perfectly balanced state with no physical causation or reason to change, short of magic.

U=∞, is the only logical answer that makes rational sense. Simple logic tells us this must be the case, because we exist. Space certainly can’t be empty while we exist, right?

Everything we are is simply a state of space, as difficult as it may be to comprehend. We are made of space, because there is no logical reason for anything else but space to exist. And after 1000’s of years of scientific research, it’s the only piece of physical evidence we’ve observed indirectly to exist. It’s an extremely dynamic ingredient.

And that leads to the most fundamental argument in logic. This is where all math and physics begins and ends.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

That’s the universe.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

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.

[Andy]

And that’s why the Big Bang is shockingly absurd, because it removes the primary catalyst of its own hypothetical origin, time, or more accurately, change. It also assumes the existence of something that has never been proven to exist as a real substance or physical reality, energy. The Big Bang is nothing short of magic, or in the more religious theme from where it was proposed, a miracle.

[Andy]

And then lets look at this concept of infinity, something I feel we have woefully incorrect.

Imagine the universe analogous to a golf ball, temporarily ignoring the fact that it has a physical dimension and divisible limitations.

GB=[1]

That golf ball can be in 1 of 3 states.

It can exist at [1], or not exist at [0].

Between [1] and [0] we have an infinite number of possibilities, so we would imagine. However, that’s not entirely true. If we start chopping it up into pieces we would eventually realize that while the number of pieces is growing, a finite number is always left behind in the aftermath. No matter how fast we chop those little pieces in half, once we stop chopping, that quantity of chopped pieces is always finite. More significantly though, the sum total of all the pieces is always [1].

What I came to realize after decades of trying to wrap my head around the infinite, is that there is no such thing as infinite quantities in the physical sense. Measurements are by definition, quantities of units. We can easily imagine there being an endless possible number of units in any measurement, but in actual reality quantities are always a time dependent process. The number of anything we measure must be bound to the concept of time, including lengths. Quantities are an emergent property of our physical reality. There is no such thing as a physical infinite quantity. That does not exist at any given moment in time. All quantities are finite when the clock stops.

If you look at it in that manner, infinity must be bound to change, and finite must be bound to the absence of change.

Looking at the universe from that perspective, a completely empty universe void of all matter cannot be defined as infinite, irrespective of the fact that it fits with the non-scientific colloquial meaning as endless. The reasoning is pretty simple. Measurements are arbitrarily derived from random units that only have meaning to us physically. A universe absent all matter, including us, only possesses one single arbitrary but meaningful point of reference, itself. U=U, which must be defined as a value of [1], because U/U=[1]. The concept of endlessness is derived from literature and abstract thought, but units of measure are time dependent and physically real to our sense of reality. Quantities can only be defined as a rate of change over time. Sure, I can hold a single apple in my hand, but the true reality is that that 1 apple is a temporary state of matter. That’s as true for the 1 apple in my hand as it is for all apples in the universe. The total quantity of apples in the universe is either in a state of expansion, or contraction.

So now I come back to this rudimentary statement in math and logic.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

The universe is infinite, not because it is endless, rather it is undergoing the constant of change. It is not perpetual, it is persistent. It cannot have a beginning, or value of [1], because it cannot have an end, or value of [0]. To reach either extreme would be the end of reality as we comprehend it for all eternity, because change would cease to exist. Without change there is no physics.

[Andy]

Andy:What is matter physically made of? I can only see one plausible answer. Space.

That sounds hardly plausible to me. Matter is the stuff that exists in space. It is different from space. Matter is something – space is nothing.

According to mainstream science, space-time is a medium that matter exists within, and certainly not nothing. And also according to mainstream science, neither space nor time existed in the past. It was created at the birth of the universe.

Whether or not anyone subscribes to the theory or not isn’t the point. The point is science definitely does not view space as nothing. And to that point, I agree. Space is not nothing, space is the only something that physically exists. Matter is dimensionless space in a temporary collapsing dimensional state.

Something I saw as a distinct possibility many years ago is that we should be able to manufacture matter out of space, because space in my view is a fundamental building block of matter. Space is the only physical ingredient that exists. Under the right condition we should be able to coax space into a somewhat stable dimensional point of existence and set it in motion.

As Big Think reports, in early 2022, a
group of researchers created strong enough electric fields in their
laboratory to level the unique properties of a material known as
graphene. With these fields, the researchers were able to enable the
spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at
all. This proved that
creating matter from nothing is indeed possible, a theory first proposed
by Julian Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum field theory.

Do you believe something can come from nothing?

I don’t.

“Nothing” is a complete absence of physical reality, and literally impossible to conjure. Space is a permanent reality. It cannot be removed from existence.

In my humble opinion, researchers proved beyond any reasonable doubt, space is physically real and the primary physical ingredient of matter. Matter itself is not real in the physical sense. Matter is a temporary state of space. It is a dimensional point in motion within dimensionless space. That state of matter can be created or destroyed, but the underlying space from which it was formed cannot. Dimension and motion can go to 0, but the underlying space always maintains a maximum cumulative potential value of [1]. For a lack of a better descriptor, space is pure potential energy, and matter is the released kinetic energy of that potential.

Andy:The logical conclusion is that a void is the only possible thing that can exist

I’m not seeing how that follows. There’s matter, and matter moves through space, which must be empty to allow matter to move.

There are many around here that believe matter is the only thing that exists, and space itself is tiny bits of matter. They claim space is built on ether particles. They would argue empty space does not exist. We traverse particles from A to B, not space.

My argument, which is the culmination of about 40 years of asking stupid questions to those people who are much smarter than I, is that a void is the only logical thing that can exist. We should not be here. Matter should not exist. All the universe should be is a motionless, endless, dimensionless void. Why would we assume anything but that as the most natural state of existence? Why are we here? What are we made of? What is matter made from?

Clearly we exists, but how?

The only thing I can see with absolute certainty that must exist, is space. We are a residual temporary byproduct of physical space. Matter is a state of physical space. We experience the entire universe through motion, which is not something that physically exists, it occurs.

That’s what makes sense to me.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

I sure wish we could edit these posts.

I did not mean this:

Something cannot not exist in the negative.

I meant this:

Something cannot exist in the negative, or negatively.

[Andy]

This of course comes down to the meaning of nothing, which is a topic that really isn’t discussed in science. Its meaning is assumed, yet debated on many levels. In math nothing paradoxically has a value, 0. 0 is really an absence of value, but not itself a tangible value. In physical reality nothing does not equal 0. Nothing is an absence of something. Nothing is an impossible condition in the universe, because that would imply that not even a void would exist. Can I have 0 physical dollars in my my hand in physical reality? Can I have negative physical dollars in my hand in physical reality? The answer is no in either case in physical reality. Something either exists or it doesn’t. I either have a dollar in my hand or I don’t. Physical reality is an absolute condition. Something cannot not exist in the negative. Relative to some arbitrary reference point we can imagine negative, but negative cannot be a physical reality. Negative is simply an opposing state from a specific vantage point.

And the bottom line to physical reality here is, you cannot get something from nothing. Something must come from something else. The absence of existence cannot spawn existence, short of magic. The idea that space and time was created is nonsense. In the absence of matter, all you have is a void, which is space. Technically, as I see it, there is no such thing as empty space. There is ONLY space, which itself is a thing, and which is in a state of motion and chaos. And that’s most likely the way it has always been, because change is a constant. Empty is not a thing or term for space. In the absence of matter space is 100% full of space, or 100% potential energy. And as I also suggest, should the universe ever achieve [1], I think it would be quite content with its balance. We wouldn’t exist.

[Andy]

The meaning of physically real is most definitely a topic of debate. Just caught an article the other day where some scientists are claiming physical reality is an illusion. Things like that strike a chord with me, and then I find myself here.

We sense the world around us through motion. That’s clear. To us, a stapler or cup is physically real. Get into the quantum level though, and the atoms aren’t even touching one another. Go deeper into the atom and it’s mostly space and whatever else exists inside it is unknown. Smash ionized atoms (or protons) together inside a particle accelerator and all that remains are splats on a sensor. There’s no debris. It’s not even vaporized. It’s just gone. Photons also disappear on impact. Their motion gets transferred. Motion is energy as near as I can assess. Without motion, nothing can happen. Time can’t even be perceived without motion because no change could occur. Motion is everything.

But you can’t have motion without stuff. Something physical has to move from A to B.

And that’s the question. What is matter physically made of?

I can only see one plausible answer.

Space.

Why would anything else but space exist?

The big bang assumes a physical object happened to exist independent of the nothingness it apparently existed within. They call it energy, surrounded by nothingness, or a void?

I don’t think so. I don’t buy it. A void must always exist, if nothing exists. That void is space. The logical conclusion is that a void is the only possible thing that can exist, or space, but a void is an unstable state. A void is a finite condition with a value of [1]. It is completely homogeneous. Motion and time have no meaning in a dimensionless void.

I’m not suggesting the void ever existed, but I am suggesting it has potential to exist. And that’s why I suggest that this is the most accurate mathematical term to describe the universe. [0] < ∞ < [1]. We’re in the middle.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and neither can a void.

The universe is akin to crumpled piece of paper, only 3-D. In my humble opinion. In its crumpled state it represents the comprehensible universe. Its value is ∞. Smooth it out, and it’s an incomprehensible static void. Its value is [1]. Destroy it, and its value is [0].

Matter is made of space.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

To reiterate my view on an infinite universe.

A static infinite universe is an oxymoron. It’s paradoxical. It’s flawed reasoning.

Static = finite.

If we claim the universe to be a static infinity, we’re stating that infinity is finite, negating the meaning of infinity entirely.

Endlessness isn’t a static condition, it’s an ongoing process without end. That’s what makes endlessness endless. Infinity can never reach a static state of endlessness. That makes no sense logically.

What fills the entirety of the total universe is space. It occupies 100%. Matter cannot occupy the entirety of space, because matter is a derivative byproduct of space in motion. Matter is a part of the whole.

I again reach limitation in vocabulary trying to describe the universe as I see it.

The space we traverse is not the same space beyond our domain or universe.

The space we exist in, is in motion. The space beyond our universe in either direction is not. That space is finite. Our observable universe moves into finite space, and because there is nothing impeding its motion, it will expand and contract simultaneously endlessly.

That’s a persistent universe.

[Andy]

The last thing I want to add is about motion. Motion is taken completely for granted universally in science. We think motion is a causal condition in the universe. I walk across the room because my muscles are creating the motion/mechanics necessary for me to move. Massless particles move at the speed of light because that’s what they do. Science considers it a natural phenomena without any real causation. Light moves at C because that’s what it does.

Reality is far different.

Motion is dynamic, and we merely transform an existing state of motion within matter to change position. Motion is transformative. The speed of light is dynamic.

The lower limit is defined by deceleration in the expansion of the universe. The upper limit is defined by acceleration in the contraction of matter. Our range of motion is always slightly greater than [0], but slightly less than [1]. The upper and lower limits of motion are dynamic and ever changing. The range of motion extends with the expansion and contraction of the universe. The higher the possible limit over time, the lower the possible limit over time.

Motion does not exist physically, it’s a property of space.

As I have suggested earlier and many time previously, the extent of matter expands over time which we view as expansion universally. What we haven’t identified yet is contraction. That’s what matter is doing. The distance between galaxies changes over time through the contraction of matter, not the expansion of space. Space occupies 100% of existence. Matter occupies less than space, but more than nothing.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

That’s the universe. We exist in the middle moving from 1 to 0. It’s the way it has always been and always will be. There was never a big bang, but it’s not a steady state either. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

We exist in a Persistent Universe, which is neither finite nor statically infinite.