Member Andy
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Why would space itself have dimensions? And why would it combine with time, to
create a continuum that propagates gravity? Why isn’t space instead, simply an empty
void which may or not be filled with mass or energy? Isn’t physical mass or objects
what actually have the dimensions, instead of the space in which they exist?More great questions!
You are clearly running through the same mechanics in your mind that I have done for the past 40 years.
Space is dimensionless, and that’s all there is physically. There is no logical reason for any else to exist. Remove all perceived energy from the universe and space becomes a singular object at [1]. It’s a gigantic piece of motionless matter only equal to itself. It is [1] universe in scale. A single point.
Our universe is built on 3 fundamental ingredients.
Space = Physical Ingredient
Motion = Active Ingredient
Time = Perceptual Ingredient
Motion and time do not exist, they occur. We experience time and space through motion.
When Space = [1], Time = [1], Motion = [0].
Time cannot cycle without motion, and we cannot experience the physical nature of space without motion. S=[1] is a frozen state. S=[0] is the absence of existence, which is impossible.
When Space = [0], Time = [0], Motion = [1].
Motion = [1] is instantaneous motion from 1 end of space to the other, which is physically impossible in our reality.
[0] and [1] is absolute motion. We exist in a non-absolute state, or infinity. We cannot experience the absence of motion or instantaneous motion, because space and time are absolute in those states. We exist entirely in the middle. We cannot experience the absolute.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
Motion is energy, but energy cannot be experienced without motion.
We perceive our reality through point collisions. Our minds create spatial dimensions from point data collisions in a more meaningful way to us. It averages on the fly in real time filling in the blanks as it goes. We see a smooth wall or a door, and we see those in color. In reality on the most fundamental level, everything is an amalgamation of colorless points. There are no lines of planes or boxes. Those are the illusions of our reality. Good illusions mind you, but fundamentally non-existent on their own.
-
How exactly to define the word “dimension”?
That is an excellent question, and something I’ve asked countless times over the years. Einstein broke the mold when he claimed time as a dimension.
Here’s the way I see it.
A dimension is any concept that can be expressed as opposing conditions on a simple 1-dimensional line segment.
0|———–|1
That is base for any dimension. The existence of something is expressed as 1, and the absence of that something is expressed as 0.
That covers a lot of ground in defining dimensions fundamentally.
up|———–|down
left|———-|right
happy|———–|sad
cold|————-|hot
fast|————-|slow
You get the idea.
There are a lot of dimensions to our existence, and the extent of which have never been explored or quantified. I would venture to say there are 1000’s of dimensions that form the reality which we are immersed in, and all are relevant on some level of understanding. How we understand these on a more practical level depends on what it is we’re trying to comprehend or figure out. A psychologist for example, is more focused on emotional dimensions, and that could spin off into a chemist looking to create a pharmaceutical to balance an emotional condition. A physicist would be more interested in the physical and/or spatial dimensions.
Physical objects clearly have three dimensions.
Do they?
Physical objects are made from points of matter. Our minds are what builds an image into a 3D object. It fills in the blanks to create imaginary lines, planes, and surfaces. We mentally smooth out the peaks and valleys into a continuous image. Our brains are image processors. Fundamentally, science shows us those “3D” objects are nothing more than an amalgamation of atoms. The only reason it looks like a 3D object to us is a function of scale and our proximity to that “object”. We’re are far enough away from visibly seeing individual atoms that the distance between them is imperceptible to the human eye. Fundamentally a 3D object isn’t any different from the zodiac shapes we’ve imagined in the sky. Our minds are very good at playing connect the dots. How “3D” something is, is a function of linear focus and a separation of energy.
To define our reality as 3D or 4D is a tad bit narrow minded, and a somewhat primitive perspective. In my humble opinion. After nearly 40 years of investigating the universe as a layman, I can honestly say, I have no clue what a 3D universe means to our reality. A single point of matter only requires 1-dimension to exists, but what that point means in relation to other points and to us requires 1000’s of equally relevant dimensions.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by
-
You have to remove yourself from the problem and step back from the universe. We use arbitrary lengths of matter to make measurements. A meter for example, is based on a mass of platinum atoms strung together to form an arbitrary length. In the absence of matter ([+e] + [-e]) the only numeric value available to describe space is [1]. space=space, or [1]=[1]. Space is only equal to itself. [0] is the absence of space, which obviously is impossible. Absolute space and absolute 0 are two different concepts. Space is something, not the absence of space.
There is definitely a logical range of motion, as opposed to the way science views motion. That range of motion is absolute. [0] |—–| [1]
If it takes [0] seconds to go from A to B, your velocity is [1]. Conversely, if your motion is [0], time must be absolute in the opposite direction, [1].
Our perspective of time is inversely proportionate (equal and opposite) to motion. As we speed up time is perceived to slow. That’s not movement towards 0, it’s movement towards 1. A longer frequency relative to shorter frequencies. Or as I suggest, time expands and contracts with space. When we accelerate we gain mass.
When M=[1], T=[0], and when M=[0], T=[1].
So, if the value of space is [1], T=[1], and M=[0]. There is no motion in absolute space.
This is not math, it’s simple binary logic.
The universe is akin to a simple mechanical light switch. In the on position, existence = [1]. In the off position, existence = [0]. Existence being the presence of space, and non-existence being the absence of space.
Our existence is neither on nor off. We’re the throw between [0] and [1].
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re more like a reflection of the greater process.
At conception my value is 1. my journey through life is ∞. My death is 0.
Time runs backwards for matter until we cease to exist.
My Physical Existence 1 —-> 0 (Space)
My Journey 0 —-> 1 (Motion)
My Temporal Existence 1 —-> 0 (Time)
Infinity represents the constant of change. Change is motion. No motion, no change.
-
John,
I have little doubt that you’re correct. Seriously, I think you’re right.
However, what science has lacked is a truly fundamental understanding of motion. Why are all these “aether” particles moving? Where are they headed? Why do massless particles travel at an apparent maximum velocity of C? Why is there an arbitrary limit of motion? Why is C so dismally slow? What exactly is motion? Why and how does anything move?
Sure, we understand the basic mechanics of walking, or a combustion engine, or a rocket, etc, but that doesn’t explain motion. Why are all these particles in motion on the quantum level? What’s making everything move as we observe?
That’s what I’m trying to understand, and trying to explain.
Acceleration and deceleration is the constant. The difference between that constant motion is C, which is an acceleration curve. C is the point between acceleration and deceleration. It’s a change in direction of motion from inward to outward, or outward to inward. Motion is inherent in the universal process, or machine. We don’t move as we think we do. We are manipulating motion curves relative to other things. That’s why C never changes no matter how fast we go, because that point always lies between acceleration and deceleration.
Imagine you have a car with unlimited power. When you hit the accelerator you have a range of acceleration to choose from all the way to 1, but you’re already in motion. As long as you’re pressing the gas you’re accelerating. Take your foot off the gas and acceleration now flips around 180 degrees and becomes deceleration. C is that middle point.
Matter is accelerating inward at a constant rate of change, and space is decelerating outward at a constant rate of change. We view the universe from C out in both directions. C is always C no matter how fast we appear to be traveling. Red shift aside.
And that’s where mass gain with acceleration comes into play. When we move in any direction we’re traveling in the outward direction We expand. We’re essentially pulling the gas pedal back a little, reducing the amount of acceleration. Traveling past C would be a change in the direction of motion, where matter would flip from inward negative contractive energy, to outward positive expansive energy.
Time follows space. It expands and contracts with motion, altering the frequency we’re tapping into to make clocks work. Frequency is changing with motion. It’s a timing problem.
That’s motion fundamentally.
We’re already in motion acceleration to [1], while mass and time is winding down to [0] in the process. The higher (smaller) the frequency the faster the observed rate of time. Everything is bound to motion.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by
-
Hello Jerry,
Stephen Hawking stated that the sum total of all energy equals nothing. That’s a contradiction in our understanding of energy. (+e) + (-e) = 0. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
He was referring to energy in two forms, contractive energy and expansive energy. And that’s all energy is at it’s core. Energy has to be in motion to experience it. The entire universe is observed to be in continual motion. No where has the absence of motion been observed.
What Stephen Hawking didn’t take into consideration is that energy is absolute. Motion is also absolute. Something either moves, or it doesn’t. Negative motion defies logic, because motion begins at [0].
[0] is the absence of something.
Looking back at Stephen Hawking remarks, this is actually what it meant.
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
If you combine all the energy in the universe you’re left with an absolute state. The only thing remaining would be space.
Space possesses the potential for energy to exist. But energy cannot exist without motion. Time cannot pass without change, and change cannot occur without motion.
Space = [1]
When space equals [1].
Motion = [0]
And when motion = [0]
Time = [1]
So, no, time does not go away, ever, nor does motion. In absolute space time cannot pass because motion is in an absolute state of [0]. Times frequency is absolute at [1], making time an absolute state without passage.
Space is a remarkable ingredient if you give it some thought. It sounds a lot like energy.
Space cannot be divided, ripped, or destroyed. Space is malleable. Space has depth. Space is a continuous unbreakable unified state. In an absolute state the value of space can only be described as [1]. It is a singular object existing everywhere. It can only be considered as a point geometrically.
What gives space motion is its potential to be [0], but [0] and [1] cannot occupy the same space, because [0] cannot not equal [1], and [1] cannot = [0].
Simply put, nothing cannot become something, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Has science ever detected anything beyond motion?
No.
No other ingredient besides space has ever been observed. There is no bottle of energy bits sitting on a shelf. Space is the only logical physical ingredient remaining, because it is the only physical thing that exists.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by
-
Hello Jerry,
“Why did Einstein “break the mold” when he claimed time a dimension?”
<div>Its a very simple observation in human reasoning. Motion is equally relevant if not more so to properties of the universe. Why doesn’t motion have its own unique dimension? And I think that answer lies in how they viewed the universe way back when. An infinite static steady state. Motion has been ignored as a unique physical property of the universe, even though nothing physical can happen without motion. Time they saw as something physically occurring independent of motion. Time occurred in space acting upon matter in a discrete manner. Einstein viewed matter as being able to outrun time. It fades away to 0 at C.</div>
I use the logical limits of motion to understand the universe which presents a logical understanding of time and motion. [0] and [1]. [0] is a REAL at rest or dead stop, or the REAL minimum. [1] is the REAL maximum state of motion. Using the logical limits of motion you can sniff out the logical limits of time and how it is tightly realized through motion. If it takes 0 seconds for me to get from A to B, I would have to be traveling at an instantaneous velocity. Logically you cannot move faster than instantaneous velocity without traveling through time and arriving at your destination B before you left A. It’s not a time paradox, it’s a logic fact. Motion can’t occur without motion. [0] is the absence of motion. We already know that’s not physically possible. We are not traveling through time. Motion causes time to occur.
The thing is, with expansion, instantaneous motion becomes an open ended possibility that can never be realized or achieved. We have to be able to travel from one end of the universe to the other to define it. If its expanding then the definition remains in flux. If motion remains in flux, then time must also remain in flux. Motion is what is driving time. Then we have the other issue of a dimensionless state. There is no other end.
I suspect a dimensionless universal state lies beyond the material universe. We expand into it. Why not? Plenty of space. The universe is not perpetual motion. Its fuels is dimensionless space. The universe is a time frequency of 1, not to be confused with [1]. It is trying to complete 1 cycle of time.
You have raised the question of space. Space isn’t nothing, it’s the only something that physically exists. As you said, space is a void. That’s something. Only, it can’t be a void as long as a universe stands in its way. A void is what it wants to be. Not to imply a will or consciousness. It’s what’s fueling the mechanics of the universe. A void is an unstable state. It collapses in on and out on itself which introduces a dimension of motion. It gives it a physical orientation of inward and outward. And this is not to imply there was ever a beginning, or there is going to be an end. The states of matter that get created in the process are a lessor reflection of the universal process. We have beginnings and ends, the universe does not. It can’t, because time is trying to complete a beginning and end to cycle. It’s like a tsunami with no shoreline to breach, because it is expanding into virgin motionless space.
Close your eyes and imagine that void of space. Something cannot come from nothing. That’s a violation of logic. 0 does not equal 1, and 1 does not equal 0. What reason would there be for anything else to exist? I can’t think of any, can you?
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re in the middle.
∞ = constant of change.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by
-
I don’t know much about the isotopes used in the RTG for pioneer, other than it being radioactive. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it still remains warm long after the power button is switched off. The heat generated from the isotope could create a subtle propulsive effect, no matter how insignificant. And then we aren’t certain of the environment it was traveling through. I don’t believe we had a lot of external sensors taking continuous readings.
It’s not about whether you’re right or wrong, it’s about the debate that follows. I have no idea who is right or wrong from where I sit and no way to confirm either side of the argument. Everyone seems genuinely sincere in their point of view with plenty of math on the table. I can’t use anyone’s opinion as a result. It doesn’t do me any good.
I don’t know if there is anything there. No clue.
Falling ether. I don’t think it’s incorrect, but I’m still wrapping my head around the mechanics. Ether was discarded long ago in favor of Einsteins empty space. From my point of view there is no such thing as empty space. Space is split into two forms of energy derived from its motion. Empty space isn’t the way to imagine it. Matter and space are fundamentally the same thing. e=mc^2.
What I’m struggling with is imagining an ether wind and why that would cause gravity. In my view there is only two directions of motion, inward or outward. That’s it. That perfectly coincides with the concept of falling ether, but not so much with the concept of ether wind in the outward direction. I imagine wind on our planet, or solar wind, and falling ether just doesn’t seem to coincide with conventional wind mechanics as we understand it. Conventional winds are mostly positive in nature. Meaning, they move primarily in the outward direction. I’ve never seen winds blowing anything together in a gravitational manner of sorts.
This is the total universe.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
It is a 1-dimensional scalar. Space on it’s own is dimensionless. What brings dimension to space is motion. No motion, no energy, no dimension. [-e]+[+e]=[1].
We move in the direction of high energy, because, we start motion at 0 and move towards 1 along the scalar dimension at an accelerating rate. We refer to that as C, which I’m calling an acceleration curve. The acceleration is constant, so from our relative perspective the velocity appears constant or static.
As we move from 0 to 1, mass contracts from 1 to 0. We are continuously moving to a higher state of energy with a diminishing mass. We have all the distance we need to work with, because scale is irrelevant in an infinite universe, and because space fundamentally lacks dimension. Scale is a relative perspective because we’re derived from motion, and dimension is derived through motion.
Ether is a low mass high energy state. That means it is much more focused on the inward direction of motion. From our perspective it may not even show much outward motion. It would just appear to be a sea of motionless particles from our perspective, possibly. Any outward motion would be insanely high. I also consider the possibility that there are “mass-less” ether particles and mass ether particles. Ether is essentially the next level down in matter and motion. Same physics as us basically only smaller and faster.
I’ve started using funnel mechanics to imagine this inward motion. Imagining the mechanics in my mind of course.
I am considering the possibility that the vacuum in space is the ether wind. From a perspective of pushing things together in a gravitational manner, I think it’s more like pulling them together from the center of mass between them. The wind would be the cause, but with slightly different mechanics possibly. Image the inward motion between two objects. That inward motion would become increasingly more linear between the two objects as they came closer together.
Still wrapping my head around it John.
I’m liking it. Gravity isn’t something I have been able to pin down in my thoughts. I’ve largely ignored thus far.
It would look a lot like the Fatio graphic I gleaned from Wiki. As near as I can imagine of course.
-
Big Bang as well as Pioneer anomaly are illusions by the same reasons.
The big bang we are in complete agreement on. Never happened.
As for the Pioneer anomaly, it seems to me there are so many plausible explanations that no single conclusion can be drawn. Unfortunately, it’s a corrupted experiment in long range travel, because it lacks data. The RTG generates heat which becomes a force in propulsion, and it doesn’t sound like anyone knows precisely where that heat was dissipating. And then we have the possibility of being hit by micro meteors from any angle or moving through an unknown debris field or dust cloud. That technology is very old an very limited. I wouldn’t trust anyone’s conclusions. The answer is, no one knows. It’s useless information that can only lead to conflict. We do not know enough about the environment it was traveling through.
Cosmological constant, as well as Hubble constant, are as much in error as is possible, since they both do not exist.
I would agree with this, but only in so far as, they’re just math problems to describe an unknown or misunderstood observation. Lambda was an admitted blunder. Hubble is a mathematical model derived through observations. They’re trying to pin down an expansion rate based on the observation of the Redshift.
Lambda is being used to explain acceleration on top of expansion.
Obviously, in my view, no one is right. We’re expanding and contracting simultaneously, exactly as Einsteins original math suggested. He ignored it because it didn’t fit the commonly accepted view of the moment, and then Hubble came along and his original work didn’t look so bad. What he missed was that the universe could expand and contract at the same time. Expansion is always in decline, and contraction is always on the rise. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be. C is an acceleration curve.
I think eventually science will come to realize there is more than one thing going on. Expansion is an outward force, and contraction is an inward force. Expansion is deceleration, and contraction is acceleration. That’s what defines physical motion.
And they say it again in this article. “Einstein’s work suggested that gravity would cause it to do one or the other.” Those were field equation in space, and not necessarily applying specifically to what we view as gravity. Why can’t the universe do both at the same time? As I suggest, contraction manifests in matter, and expansion manifests in the space we traverse. It’s all space. Mass=Space, because e=mc^2. [-e]+[+e]=[1]. space=[1].
Albert Einstein, the famous German-American physicist, came up with the cosmological constant, which he called the “universal constant,” in 1915 as a means to balance certain calculations in his theory of general relativity.
At the time, physicists believed the universe was static — neither
expanding nor contracting — but Einstein’s work suggested that gravity
would cause it to do one or the other. So, to mesh with the scientific
consensus, Einstein inserted a fudge factor, denoted by the Greek letter
lambda, into his results, which kept the cosmos still. -
This is how motion is fundamentally being defined. The faster something goes, the slower something goes, and vice versa. At rest means nothing without motion. Slow means nothing without fast, and fast means nothing without slow. The two extremes are continually redefining the meaning of motion, but motion itself is fundamentally defined by the opposite extremes of motion. [0] is a dead stop. That’s real. [1] is instantaneous. That’s real. True instantaneous motion in our universe is NOT possible. And I can prove that one mathematically. Not that I would bother, because it should be self evident to anyone that understands what I’m talking about. And if someone needed a formula to see it, then they do not understand what I’m saying. Me explaining it mathematically would serve no purpose in someone else understanding the problem.
-
“The Hubble constant is also in error”
I’m not sure it’s in error, but it’s most definitely not known precisely. I do not consider it fundamentally understood in the least bit.
As I suggest, expansion is always in decline, and contraction is always on the rise. Expansion waves decelerate in the outward direction, and contraction waves accelerate in the inward direction. The actual net difference is mathematically 0 as near as I can imagine, and that’s as static as the universe can get. The larger something within the universe can be, the smaller something else can be. The line between [0] and [1] extends further inward and outward in the process. That’s infinity. Wedged between two finite values.
The acceleration we see in Redshift is us moving inward at an accelerating rate, or C. C is an acceleration curve, NOT a static velocity. It’s the great illusion of motion, which is universally occurring between [0] and [1] at a constant rate of change.
-
“The large red shifts are illusions”
And I think that’s really what’s at issue. We base physics on the illusion of reality, which is a relative perspective all the way down to motion and scale, not the fundamental reality that we’re built on. Illusion is our reality, because without it nothing would make sense. Illusion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Color is an illusion, for example, thankfully. Our mind and body has incredible environmental sensors and processing capabilities. Everything we observe isn’t necessarily fundamentally real. We’re fooled into a static reality of comprehensible physical dimensions and benign casual motion. Fundamentally an infinite universe is dimensionless, and a fundamentally dimensionless state cannot be considered static. It doesn’t make sense, because there are no definable dimensions to claim static.
-
“I say, that the universe is static at a large scale.”
That begs to question. If we’re dynamic at a small scale, then all the variables we use to observe the universe must be dynamic. How can we know the true meaning of distance or velocity?
Large has no meaning without small to compare it to.
As near as I can imagine, the universe is dimensionless on a fundamental level. Without matter the value of the universe is [-e]+[+e]=[1]. There are no definable dimensions in a single point value. It’s just 1 thing. Scale has no meaning unless something else exists to compare it to. The only comparison value to [1] is the absence of [1], which is [0].
How big the universe is an extrapolation of how small we view something within it. A meter at its core fundamental level is a length of platinum sitting in a vault in France. The entire scale of the universe is based on length of atoms strung together in a line segment. If we’re dynamic locally, then the universe must be dynamic at any larger scale, because we’re basing scale on a dynamic value fundamentally.
“Large” doesn’t mean anything on a fundamental level, but it does mean something on a relative level.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by
-
I just looked at Fatio for the first time. At first glance it seems like a plausible concept. Don’t know. Need to wrap my head around that. See how it could fit into what I imagine is going on. Gravity is tough to see. My instincts lean towards a contraction wave. It’s simple and clean and fits. In all my years of poking around it’s the first time the name Fatio has come up honestly.
Of course we don’t need lambda. Einstein said it was a mistake, and I have no reason to doubt him on that. That would be a fools errand for me. He should know, it’s his math. He forced the math intentionally to make it a static steady state which coincided with the common sentiment of the times. He admitted that. He threw it out, and some 70 years later scientists drug it back out. It was wrong when Einstein created it, and it’s wrong now.
I think his original work was probably closer to the truth. The universe cannot remain static. That makes sense to me.
I disagree with a static universe. That is not what we observe, and as I’ve stated, finite=static. It breaks with logic. Makes no sense. It was wrong 100+ years ago, and it’s wrong today. We do not live in a static universe. Our universe is dynamic. That’s what we observe.
I most definitely would have to disagree with a static universe.
I don’t know if you’ve read anything else I wrote. That’s the way I see it.
-
“his equations told him that the universe could not stay static: It had to either expand or contract. Einstein chose to ignore what his mathematics was telling him.”
And that’s the key mistake science made in the early 1900’s. No one imagined the universe could expand and contract at the same time. Wasn’t even considered an option. Einstein added lambda to force a static steady state universe to coincide with the popular dogma of the times, and threw it out on Hubble’s observation. Science added it back in 1998 to explain expansion and acceleration.
“When a genius such as Einstein makes a
mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.” It can’t simply go away
— there is too much thought that has gone into it. So, like a phoenix,
Einstein’s cosmological constant made a remarkable comeback, very
unexpectedly, in 1998.”Mainstream scientists are so “star struck” and “awed” by Einstein, that the man can’t even make an honest mistake when he clearly makes mistakes like any other human being on the planet.
All of science and academia were so entrenched in a steady-state static infinite universe, all other possible scenarios were ignored. When Hubble made his new observation, that all galaxies were moving away from each other, they ran with expansion while completely casting aside the possibility of contraction. Then in 1931 Georges Lemaître came out with the Big Bang Theory from theology, and the rest is history. We’ve been stuck in the rut ever since.
They had a scientific theory supporting expansion, and an observation by Hubble, and Einstein supporting it all.
The problem was, and still is, scientists view matter as something sitting within space, and space is the universe to them. Matter just happens to be there aimlessly floating around for no apparent reason and is made of some mysterious energy they call mass.
Reality is, matter is half of the total universe, and the space we move around in is the other half of the total universe. But, everything is made from space, because, [-e] = [+e]. e=space.
Infinity is not static.
I see the machine…
-
I’ll take a stab at our universal limits.
As I suggest, “mass-less” particles don’t actually travel at C. C is an acceleration curve. Light for example, gets drug just behind that curve, flipping back and forth between positive and negative or expansion and contraction. It looks constant to us, but that’s about it. The acceleration curve stretches all the way to [1] and all the way back to [0]. The expansion and contraction waves we’re tuned to can only sustain their form to a point at a specific acceleration or deceleration rate. Acceleration outpaces some waves, or the waves can outpace the acceleration curve, so they break off and dissipate into the substrate of space. Some are probably latching onto the next higher acceleration curve, out of our range.
That’s what the “quantum foam” is all about. Those little random pops of existence are the last gasp of recognizable matter to us before those particles dissipate into expansion and slow down, or zip off into a higher energy state beyond our range of motion.
In short, we can only see so far into the universe before the waves break down and become unrecognizable to us. Webb will reach a physical limit looking backward in time, as we have a physical limit of C looking forward in time. The energy looking back will become to low for us to see, and the energy looking forward will be too high for us to see.
But I’m getting into a math problem now. Someone will figure it out, precisely.
I think it would be interesting to accelerate a telescope outward. That might in theory enhance our visibility backward in time. Not sure.