Member Andy
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Couldn’t this also be related to the more persistent density of water over time? A sifting process. Same basic result, slightly different mechanics. Higher density land mass breaks up and falls down, while waters density remains more constant over time in relation to land mass. Our planet has a high iron content. Water pushes up from the plates while heavier particles fall down to the core. Gravity further compresses land mass into denser solids underneath the layer of water. The entire core of our planet is thought to be dense iron. Contraction would seem to play a vital role in the process as well. The core layers may be gaining density while the more persistent density of the water layer pushes up and spreads out.
I suppose we would also be gaining some matter over time naturally from gravity. Debris from comets and asteroids floating around in space getting pulled in to our gravitational field. Wonder how much of that is water or iron.
Are there any estimates from the amount of mass we gain from space on a yearly basis?
Just wondering…
Seems like a lot of moving parts over time.
Looks plausible. The video is pretty convincing.
-
I really hate the time limits on editing posts.
I wanted to clarify Time and Motion.
Neither Time nor Motion physically exist. They are phenomena that allow us to experience the universe. Motion and time are closely related because they are emergent properties of space. Time is equal to space numerically, and motion is the inverse of time, or runs in the opposite direction perceptually. When M=[1], T=[0] and S=[0]. We can’t experience time or space at a maximum state of motion. Conversely, we can’t experience motion or space at a maximum state of time.
Roughly translating to, we cannot experience finite conditions.
What this means to me is that anything we experience must be in motion. There is no true “at rest” anywhere in the known universe. There are no constants. Continuous change is a requirement of the observable universe. There are no limits to the relative nature of our existence. The speed of light is not constant, but it is constantly changing in a linear manner giving us the illusion of a constant velocity. “At rest” in our universe is strictly a matter of perspective. We’re only at rest relative to other things accelerating at the same relative velocity.
The linear change in our existence is fundamentally why our universe is bound to mathematical principals. It’s why physics exists. There must be an underlying continuous linear process occurring. That linear process is the natural rudimentary numbering system of the universe that makes math possible in making any and all scientific predictions.
There is a reason for everything.
-
<div>” I would also offer the suggestion that time and space would continue to exist, if “motion”, or any objects in motion, or even stationary objects, didn’t exist. Just a thought!”</div><div>
Time, space, and motion always exist. That comes down to understanding them on a numeric or mathematical level.
When S=[1], T=[1], and M=[0].
What that means is that space must always exist. Space without motion (M=0), though, is a frozen state, so time must reflect as a finite frequency because space lacks change with a finite value. What we end up understanding is that space and time are equal. Time doesn’t physically exist, so it can’t not exist. Time is derived from motion. M=0 isn’t the absence of motion, it represents the potential for motion, BUT, something has to move for motion to make any sense at all, which leads us back to space. Space is the only thing that physically exists. Space must always exist, because time and motion must always exist in some state. We experience the universe through motion and time.
One of the biggest challenges in explaining any of this is that the words to describe what I’m trying to explain don’t exist. For example, as I see it, our universe has been expanding endlessly. There was never a big bang, only expansion. That doesn’t necessarily mean that space is expanding, as much as it means the extent of matter is expanding. Space is endless in extent, but its core value is [1]. Matter is a derivative of space, so matter is less than the whole. I think the expansion of the universe we exist in is the result of the cascading creation of matter along the head of a wave. Motionless/dimensionless space contracts (moves) into dimensional matter.
Everywhere I look in science I see evidence of what I’m suggesting.
Most recently (9-2022) science created matter from what they claim was “nothing”. Claiming nothing though is flawed reasoning. 0=0. Nothing cannot be anything else but 0. They did not create matter from “nothing”, they created matter from space, which is greater than nothing. It may seem like nothing, but I will challenge anyone to argue the meaning of nothing mathematically. 0 is 0. It’s the absence of something. Something cannot be created from an absence. That makes no sense. [1] can always be divided in half, where 0 is indivisible. Something can only come from something else.
Mathematically and logically I am 100% correct. Something cannot come from nothing, unless someone wants to do a hand-wave on the problem. I can’t debate a belief.
</div>
-
Understand John, I have nothing to lose here, and probably nothing to gain either. I’m just a lowly random armchair theorist of sorts. I can’t prove anything mathematically, not even to myself. I’m reasonably confident in my assertions because they fit every observation and define them in plain English. I can understand the universe plainly. And that’s the way it should be in my humble opinion. It must make sense, contrary to what science believes. Conveying what I see is always the challenge. Getting anyone to take anything I say seriously is even a bigger challenge. Who cares what random me has to say? No one really. And I do get it. The odds of someone like me having anything to offer science is 1 in 8 billion, literally. And I could always be wrong. I don’t know. It’s very easy to dismiss me, is the bottom line. I don’t take it personally.
Here’s the thing, I know where some proof might lie. Might, I stress. Not 100% confident.
In my view, everything is relative, from motion, right down to time, mass, and even distance.
I suspect the answer to the galaxy rotation phenomena might be related to distance dropping off at the inverse square from the center of galaxies out. We’re superimposing our perspective of distance on top of entire galaxies in the form of light years. We’re treating distance as a static feature of the universe, where I suspect it’s more of a relative feature of the universe. At the center of all galaxies lies a super massive black-hole. It’s the eye the galactic storm. Distance contracts the closer to the center, and it expands the further away from center. It may look like galaxies are spinning faster than they should on the outer edge, but I suspect if someone were to serious examine distance from the inverse square perspective, it may answer the riddle. The outer edge might be a bit shorter than the inner edge, giving us a rotational illusion of sorts. We’re essential using a straight line to represent distance from the center out, resulting in a straight line of motion across the diameter. I think that distance line should curve, or compress closer to the center. Things in the middle are traveling a greater distance than we physically see, and things on the outer perimeter are traveling a shorter distance than we physically see.
I wouldn’t know where to begin sorting something like that out. There’s a lot to take into consideration. I see in general terms how it could work mechanically.
-
This is Static Steady State:
A. ∞
This is Big Bang
B. [0] < ∞
This is Persistent Universe
C. [0] < ∞ < [1]
You tell me which one looks correct mathematically and logically.
A and B are incomplete. Math wouldn’t work. They don’t follow logic and reason and only lead to violations in physics. They both become the cause effect of themselves.
C ties into our numeric system of linear order. Math works perfectly which matches precisely with what we observe, and it’s following the laws of physics. The universe is not the cause and effect of itself. It’s driven by the potential in [0] and [1], endlessly searching for its beginning and end, which it can never reach. That’s why we exist.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
“However, you did not like steady state either and that is the only alternative”
No it’s not the only alternative. I’m describing a persistent universe, not a big bang or a static steady state. It does not violate the laws of physics, it follows them to the letter of the laws. The creation of matter is a continuous process. A wave of creation swept over our region of space leaving matter behind in its wake. It kept going until it was well out of our range of motion. Never ends. We’re part that result. Time is a two way street. Expansion leads to new time, and contraction leads to old time. Matter contracts backwards in time, and space expands forwards in time.
As I’ve repeated many times.
My conception begins at 1. My journey through life is ∞. My death is 0.
It looks nearly identical to the big bang, because it is an inverted perspective from our vantage point. Big bang attempts to pack the Genie back in the bottle by hitting an imaginary rewind button, and pulling everything to an imaginary central point of origin. It doesn’t work like that. Matter does not come from a central point of creation, because that leads to [0].
The center is everywhere matter exists, and the direction of motion is 1-dimensional, inward and outward. Matter comes from the outward direction, [1], not [0]. Something cannot come from nothing [0], it comes from something else [1]. Matter contracts, space expands. But it’s all space.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
Steady state assumes matter just randomly exists for no apparent reason. And somehow it’s just compelled to move around and crash into things, causing more and more things to happen while creating more and more matter in the process perpetually. Makes absolutely no sense.
I don’t know how anyone could buy into a static steady state frankly. It’s like having and empty soda bottle randomly fill itself with more soda. That’s not the way anything even remotely works.
Matter is created on a universal scale, like the big bang suggest, but not from an overunity machine like the big bang. Science has the universe flipped around 180 degrees heading in the wrong direction. It would be a very easy mistake to make from our perspective on Earth. It’s a 1-dimensional inverse problem. They’ve inverted the universe after observing the redshift. They stopped imagining alternatives.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it. Steady state is as wrong as the big bang. Our universe is not the cause and effect of itself and that is exactly where both lead. Big bang is overunity, and steady state is perpetual motion. They violate the laws of physics.
Two bad choices are all those amount to John.
And that’s what I’m trying to explain. Ether won’t hold up under either.
-
Small semantics correction.
Science has the material part of the universe flipped around 180 degrees heading the wrong direction. Matter contracts inward, and the space we traverse expands outward.
The big bang is 1/2 right or 1/2 wrong, depending on how you want to look at it. But that means 50% of it is garbage. GR is studying expansion, and QM is studying contraction. They just don’t realize they’re studying two halves of the whole.
-
What lead you to believe what I’m saying has anything to do with the big bang?
-
“You seems to like Big Bang and I said that it was an illusion due to ether motion instead of body motion.”
No John, I don’t agree with the Big Bang at all. I don’t know where you got that notion from. It’s an absurd theory that has been disproved many times over. Galaxies alone take billions of years to develop. Hubble revealed entire galaxies fully formed in a few millions of years. Web is going to roll us closer to instant galaxies. Absurd.
An ether theory cannot be compartmentalized into a neat little topic of discussion. It is fundamentally the entire scope of the universe. It is the foundation that the universe exists on.
You must get into a completely new paradigm to support it.
Where does all the matter come from? Where did the ether come from? Where is it all headed?
You seem to like a static steady state universe. I don’t understand how that’s any better than a big bang.
As I said, perpetual existence is simply another label for perpetual motion. Our observable universe cannot be the cause and effect of itself perpetually over time. Motion cannot keep causing motion indefinitely. Matter cannot keep causing matter indefinitely. The universe would have fizzled out eons ago.
I don’t think a static steady state is any substitute for a Big Bang. I see it as more of the same old same old.
-
And to be very clear, a static infinite universe is a violation in the laws of physics. It invokes the concept of perpetual existence, so everything contained within a perpetual static infinite universe would be perpetual in natural. That’s not what we observe, and it violates the laws of physics.
And that is exactly why steady state failed, and big bang rose to the top of the heap.
We’ve been imagining the wrong infinite universe.
A static infinite universe is a perpetual motion machine.
The Big Bang is also violating the laws of physics as we understand them. The big bang is gaining energy over time. Its an overunity machine.
The universe is persistent. It gains as much energy as it loses over time through expansion and contraction. It is 100% efficient. What changes is its scale of magnitude over time. The higher the scale the smaller the scale. Change is the constant. Our universe is dynamic. It is not infinite in extent, it is infinitely changing in extent in both directions over time. That’s the net result from the input energy. That input comes from motionless space beyond the observable universe we are immersed in, and the output is a change in extent. The scale changes. There was never a beginning or end.
This is the way I view the universe fundamentally.
I’m following the laws of physics, not violating them.
-
I am with you on the ether John, but it’s not a line of thought I’ve followed much over the years. I know that might seem a bit odd considering the level of importance you place on it. I’ve been looking at the universe from the outside looking in. I suppose you could say I’m looking at it from [1], and you’re looking at it from [0]. In the middle lies everything else.
There is very little doubt in my mind that I have found a correct path in understanding the universe. However, I am a layman John. I’m not pretending to be someone with the same set of skills as you or anyone else. I see and explain things differently. It takes me a lot longer to get to a point because I explain it in plain English. I imagine the mechanics. I consider the universe more machine like, but a machine with an endless supply of energy that fuels it. It’s not perpetual, it’s persistent. In that sense our universe cannot be static, and I think that’s a key difference between our views.
I think this is the most reasonable assumption to make about the universe.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re in the middle.
The two ends can never be reached. If it did the machine would shutdown.
My best analogy is a simple single pole light switch.
In the off ([0]) position there would be absolutely nothing. Obviously that’s impossible to achieve, so it can only be viewed from a potential standpoint. It’s real, but impossible. And I think that’s what makes it so confounding for science. We can calculate the universe all the way back to [0], as in a possible big bang, but that’s not at all the way it works. That is only a potential reality that has never and will never exist. Mainstream science keeps hitting the rewind button looking at the same problem over and over again.
In the on ([1]) position space would be everywhere at once. It would be a motionless static void. An equilibrium would be achieved, or a perfectly balanced state. And obviously, that doesn’t exist or we wouldn’t be here. Like [0] it’s real, but impossible. And that’s where science imagines a heat death. We’re just going to expand into oblivion. Mathematically it works out to an extent, because it is possible mathematically like the big bang, but it’s wrong. Mainstream science keeps hitting the fast forward button looking at the same problem over and over again.
This all ties into your ether John. As I said, I think you’re right. But I need to see it in my mind.
Anti-Ether might be an absurd line of thought. I don’t know. Still working on it.
This is where I’m struggling with the ether.
There’s always more in either direction, because there is no finite end to the universe, only a potential to a finite end. There’s more above [0], and there’s more below [1]. Falling occurs in two directions. The majority of what we can see falls inward, and everything we can’t see falls upward. There is an equal and opposite to everything.
If what we recognize as matter is absorbing ether particles, where is that ether heading? And what’s the medium for ether to exist in?
When we look out into space at the vastness, there is an equal and opposite vastness in the opposite direction, inward. Outward is where we were, and inward is where we’re headed.
My thought on anti-ether is that there is a steady flow of expansion particles flowing outward from matter. And that’s what is pushing my bottom up right now as I sit in this chair.
There is only two forms of energy. Expansive, or repulsive energy, and contractive , or binding energy. Push/pull. That’s all the mechanics the universe can manage. A simple push or pull. What differentiates the effects of the pushing and pulling forces is bound to scale and velocity.
No matter where we are in the universe…
[0] < ∞ < (us) < ∞ < [1]
There’s always more.
You’re looking at, us to [0].
[0] < ∞ < ether < us < ether < ∞ <[1]
The flow of ether particles must be two way, and must also oppose each other in the process.
There is only two basic things going on fundamentally, expansion (+energy) and contraction (-energy).
[0] — acceleration —> [1]
[1] — deceleration —> [0]
[1] — mass contraction —> [0]
[0] — mass expansion —> [1]
Mass = Space
Space = Time
That’s it.
It’s a very simple machine fundamentally. Understanding it mathematically and manipulating it, very complex. Extremely difficult. And that makes proving anything extremely difficult. People hold on to what they think they know, without exception.
I love that quote by Mark Twain.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I don’t believe anything John.
false < unknown < true.
What we know about the universe is mostly unknown, with a few mathematical facts sprinkled in to confuse us. 1+1=2 is a mathematical fact. What that means exactly is open to interpretation.
-
I suppose it could also act as an anti-ether near the source.
-
The reason I ask John, is because if I follow my reasoning, all matter must emit an equal but opposite expansive/repulsive energy as it contracts inward. That repulsive energy should attenuate out from the source, probably following inverse square laws. That energy is nothing more than tiny expanding ether particles traveling outward in the opposite direction of matter. But, opposite energies do attract. Some of those particles would probably loop back around as they slow and expanded to a relative state.
I could see a falling ether in that scenario.
-
“The radial ether wind is caused by attenuation matter leading to fewer
ether particles leaving a body. So, a small difference in the number of
particles means a falling ether and therefore light moves down faster
than up.”I’m very interested in this concept John. I’m not following it entirely.
What exactly does “radial” wind mean? Is it circling bodies? Why exactly are there fewer ether particles closer to a body? Why would that cause fewer particles?
I suspect you’re suggesting either particles thin out at inverse square laws closer to a body.
I have some thoughts on the subject, but I’m not clear on the concept yet.