Member Andy
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Here’s the issue I have with ether. What are they made of? And then what are those made up of? And then what are those made up of? And so on, and so on, and so on.
There is no depth to the redundancy in the answer, because [0] < ∞ < [1]. We’re in the middle, not on the ends.
Ether is most likely true, as you say, but ultimately everything would have to be made from something else.
I would suspect ether particles would exist at a much higher energy than anything we could define (or imagine) within our range of physics, and that energy just keeps rising and rising and rising the further down we go trying to define what everything is made of. What I mean by that is our limits of motion exist between 0 and 1. Those are relative limits within our range of comprehension. The total universes limit is [0] and [1]. That’s a real physical limit that can never be reached in either direction somewhere will beyond us. Ether is probably out of our physical range of motion and would only be indirectly detectable to a very limited point.
Ether is bottomless pit, but it also must be an endless journey in the opposite direction. The further out we go from the center the lower and lower the energy gets. We could be some other universes ether particles for all we know.
I don’t consider light speed a serious or real limit of velocity, but it is a limit to us at any given moment in time. There are no real constants in the universe. Constant change is the driving force, in my humble opinion.
I’m not sure if ether leads us away from understanding the universe we are immersed in, or brings us closer to understanding the universe we are immersed in. Can’t decide.
I’m a big picture kind of person. I’m stepping outside the total universe and looking at it from afar.
-
You know John, I can predict the future. We all can, and we’ve been doing it for decades, we just don’t know it. Contraction leads to the future, and expansion leads to the past. Clockwise and counterclockwise motion. Acceleration and deceleration.
When we peer inward into atoms, what do we see? High energy.
When we peer outward into the cosmos, what do we see? Low energy.
That’s our future, higher energy. Our past was low energy. We move from a high mass low energy state, to a high energy low mass state.
I do not think light travels at C. It dances back and forth between expansion and contraction.
C is an acceleration curve. We cannot create motion. We can only take advantage of motion already present in the system. And that’s why we can’t accelerate a particle to C. We cannot accelerate to a velocity that doesn’t exist yet. It will exist for us in a moment, but there is a timing delay.
Acceleration is not about “infinite mass”. That applies to rockets or propulsion systems.
-
<div>The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.</div>
An infinite universe can’t age, because it never had a beginning. This woefully misguided concept of an infinitely old universe is still prevalent today.
Every moment the universe exists, it is a new universe. And every moment it exists, it is a dead universe.
Time runs in opposite directions. Expansion leads to the beginning, and contraction leads to the end. There’s no rewind button, obviously. It’s a continuous loop, moving in circles. Our universe is running clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Our universe is ageless.
The universe recycles.
We never finished contemplating the meaning of an infinite universe. Once our technology developed far enough along that we could see past our galaxy, we stopped thinking. We stopped imagining. We decided the universe was finite at first glance, and that was that. We spent the next 100 years proving it to each other in science and the general population at large. 100 years wasted on Big Bang.
We were wrong.
It’s another flat Earth, geocentrism, or heliocentrism mentality all over again. These things are really hard to move past as a society.
-
Here’s the rub John.
And I’ve said this for quite a while, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Our numbering system was never intended to define the universe. It was invented for commerce and construction, NOT science. That it worked for the universe is purely coincidental. We’re treating the universe like an accounting problem or a building.
I don’t think people appreciate the significance of that statement.
Before Hubble, our universe was infinite. That’s the way everyone understood it. Steady State. Cantor viewed our numbering system as a representation of the universe, and sought to find god in infinity. I won’t go into the absurdity of all that.
The rest of academia viewed the universe as a “static” infinity. And that contradicts the meaning of infinity. Static is a finite term. Olber’s paradox is a striking example of a fundamentally incorrect assumption about an infinite universe. And this is still how we view an infinite universe today.
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite
number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright
rather than dark.First, imagining infinity as static invalidates the concept of infinity. Next, claiming infinitely old suggests there was a beginning point, invalidating infinity, because mathematically we define infinity as “a number greater than any countable number or quantity”. That’s still a finite value.
The entire concept of infinity is completely misunderstood, and I trace that back to our numbering system.
We used redundant logic to develop a system that could handle any value. It was designed without end. We know that, because we invented it. That’s not the way the universe works.
Like any math problem, we need to weed out redundancy in the variables to get down to the core problem. 0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3, is a redundant logic problem. Looking at this logically, ∞ always falls between whole numbers. We’re just raising the magnitude of the problem, and in the process we aren’t seeing the core problem.
0<∞<1
That’s the core problem that our numbering system stems from, and that’s all the universe needs.
Existence is absolute. So…
[0] < ∞ < [1]
That’s the universes numbering system that ties into mathematics. Everything else we created is redundant nonsense. The minimum condition for a universe is [0], and the maximum condition for a universe is [1].
We are neither. We’re in the middle.
Our universe is infinite.
But…
[0] < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.7 < 0.8 < 0.9 < [1]
Our relative perspective of the universe is probably more like.
0.4 < ∞ < 0.5
0.4 = 0
0.5 = 1
C is somewhere in the middle of those two points.
Everything between [0] and [1] moves.
Infinity is dynamic, NOT static.
Finite is static. It sits on the end points of a line segment. We’re the line in between those two end points, but see our own version of 0 and 1 in the process. Planck length for example, I view as a relative limit. It’s a moving target, like everything else. It’s not real, but it is real enough to us from a relative standpoint. It is a limit, but it’s not finite fundamentally.
Anyway, no one seems to see it, strangely enough. They’re completely satisfied with Cantors archaic theological interpretation of our numbering system. Go figure.
Your aether John, is probably more like, .0000000000001 to an atoms .00001. Matter exist on a changing line segment, mathematically speaking.
-
“The are no speed limits in the universe.”
But there is a relative speed limit. I think colliders have proven that fairly well over the decades. Understanding what that means is the tricky part.
To understand it, you have to look at the REAL maximum velocity, and the REAL minimum velocity.
[1] is the maximum. That would be instantaneous motion between two points. Nothing can exceed that limit without arriving at B before leaving A. So, yes, there is definitely a logical limit of motion that cannot be exceeded.
And there is a logical minimum, [0]. Going past [0] would constitute negative motion, which is utterly absurd to consider. Something either moves or it doesn’t, period.
Motion is absolute.
We exist in a non-absolute universe, or ∞.
Contraction waves accelerate from 0 to 1. Expansion waves decelerate from 1 to 0.
Matter can slow it’s inward acceleration to very near 0, but it can’t go past it, because it would no longer be a contraction wave. It would flip to an expansion wave. It would no longer be accelerating inward, it would decelerate outward to to 0.
Motion is a continuous loop as near as I can see.
0<1>0<1>0<1
When matter accelerates in the positive direction, or outward, its mass expands as it loses kinetic energy.
0|–O——–|1
When matter accelerates in the negative direction, or inward, its mass contracts as it gains kinetic energy.
0|——–o–|1
But the speed of light is an arbitrary assignment, and really slow in the whole scheme of things.
0|—–o—–|1
We view the universe center out, always. Matter is always in an accelerating state no matter where it sits between 0 and 1. The speed of light is always rising as we continuously gain kinetic energy in the contraction process.
We cannot created or destroy motion. We can only transform it from one state to another, or alter it’s natural course along the scalar dimension. In other words, we can only manipulate motion already inherent in the system. We can’t add or subtract from it. We aren’t really accelerating as we think we are. We aren’t running fast, or jetting across the world. We’re moving an acceleration curve back and forth relative to everything else. When we move in the positive direction, we reduce acceleration in the negative direction.
Light looks like a fixed point of reference, or constant, but it’s not.
I’m not sure how we get around it, but I’m sure someone will figure it out. The point is, motion is not what it appears to be. We have been overly concerned with our outward motion relative to other things in the universe, and frames, and blah blah blah. We’ve never bothered trying to understand what it means on a deeper level. We’ve taken the limits of motion set by Einstein verbatim, and completely ignored the logical limits of [0] and [1]. The logical limits are 0 and 1. That’s real, Einstein is relative. Quantum entanglement shows us we’re missing something very fundamental. That’s occurring on the logical limits of motion, without any explanation in science. I can explain it with this understanding pretty easily. Particles become bound on the scalar dimension.
1—-0—-1
They communicate in the mirror image of each other, which is exactly what we observe.
-
John,
“You said that we cannot detect the ether.”
What I said precisely was, “indirectly detectable to a very limited point”.
What I meant by that precisely is, there is no depth to the limits of aether particles. And what I mean precisely is, whatever we can detect indirectly isn’t even scratching the surface of what actually exists well beyond any detection.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re in the middle.
So yes, I see aether.
However, I’ve also been known to say, contemplating infinity is a useless exercise on a mental treadmill.
What’s most important to understand is how our universe works, anything more or less is a redundant math problem. 0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3…..
I see the machine.
-
Let me clarify this:
“The higher the velocity the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass, the lower the kinetic energy.”
Was implied to mean
“The higher the velocity of individual pieces of matter the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass of individual pieces of matter, the lower the kinetic energy.”
In the case of a black hole, we’re dealing with a lot of condensed pieces of matter. There is a lot of inward kinetic energy cumulatively.
I suspect gravity may be caused by a contraction wave. When matter becomes bound together, the contraction wave multiplies in strength.
I don’t know. Things are less certain the further down the rabbit hole I go. It’s easy to imagine that might be the case, but math becomes bit more important to sort out the logic on that level.
-
I misspoke.
Wave front wasn’t the right choice of terms.
What’s your definition of energy? I don’t know what a “large amount” of energy means. As near as I can imagine, everything is made from aether. But I see energy as entirely kinetic in nature. The higher the velocity the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass, the lower the kinetic energy. [-e]=[+e]. Energy is motion. The entire observable universe is in motion, hence the entire observable universe is energy in one form or another.
Not sure about your comment in vacuum. I don’t understand. Space seems pretty vacuous, and if all matter is contracting inward, that seems like a pretty good argument for vacuum.
I don’t know anything about Higgs either, but it is said to give mass to particles according to mainstream. The “god” particle. It’s supposedly the magic battery.
“Since the Higgs boson has the role to generate the mass of other particles
and the fact that dark matter can primarily be detected through its
mass, the Higgs boson can be a unique portal to finding signs of dark
matter.”It’s the energizer bunny on steroids.
-
Making a static environment to perform experiments does not change the dynamic nature of the universe one bit. What it does reveal is the exacting nature of our relative static reality within a completely dynamic infinite universe.
-
Science is done in a nearly perfect vacuum at sea level in a nearly perfect environmentally controlled room under nearly precise power. All they’ve ever proven is that we can reproduce nearly identical results in a perfectly controlled environment where we know all the variables we can possibly think of impacting whatever it is we’re trying to observe. Great for building stuff, but not so great in defining our reality.
Reality is, no two meters in the real world are exactly alike from one moment to the next, from one environment to the next, from one temperature to the next, from one velocity to the next, or from one planet to the next, etc., etc.
Reality is dynamic, not static. That’s a fact.
-
Our outward motion, like blasting a rocket into space, driving a car, or walking down the street, takes away from our inward motion. We can only move in two directions, inward or outward. All motion occurs along a 1-dimensional scalar. Our motion outward is a gain in mass energy, and our “at rest” state is a gain in kinetic energy. The science I’m talking about doesn’t exist, yet.
There is always a radical difference between the things we know and the unknown.
My view is radically different from what we think we know. We don’t know much fundamentally was the obvious conclusion I came to years ago. Once you understand it, it’s pretty simple.
The most famous formula on the planet is a glaring example of our collective ignorance scientifically. And I do not mean that in the derogatory sense. I mean that literally.
e=mc^2.
Do we know what energy is? No
Do we know what mass is? No
Do we know what motion is? No
Energy is kinetically derived through motion. Mass is expansive energy, which is a loss in kinetic energy. A loss of potential in one form of energy, is gain of potential in the opposite form of energy.
[+e] = [-e]
Motion cannot be created or destroyed.
-
As far as aether goes, this explains it. I agree there is aether, but as I also suggest aether exists at a much higher (kinetic) energy than we can perceive. The universe is a bottomless hole leading to [0] in one direction, and leading to [1] in the opposite direction, which cannot be reached in either direction. Contraction waves move inward, and expansion waves move outward. The universe is built on kinetic energy. It is 100% mechanical energy in nature. It’s a machine.
-
My issue with particles is the power supply John. Science views particles with a built in battery that holds it together and binds it to other particles, while also generating an endless quantity of electrons, light, and radiation. Somehow this powerful tiny little battery lasts billions of years, which feels more like magic than reality to me. I can see why they got funding for the LHC. If science were able to synthesize that tiny little battery in a lab, our energy needs are solved.
Imagine a contraction wave in an infinite universe. The inverted wave front is what’s holding matter together, NOT an eternal battery made from a magical endless supply of “energy”. Ignore the constant of C for a moment, and imagine that wave is in an accelerating state traveling straight inward along a scalar dimension. It loses mass, spewing out radiation, electrons, and photons, etc. etc, while gaining energy. The mass loss is what is binding particles together, and creating all the forces of nature. Nuclear weak, nuclear strong, magnetism, etc. The Higgs is caused by the inverted wave front and a constant increase in kinetic energy through motion. Things appear to slow down the more inward we look, but, it could also be our perspective changes. We’re looking more and more directly at a straight line pointing directly inward to [0]. As I’ve suggest, the more at rest an object, the more inward it moves.
We view the universe from the center of mass out, so everything appears constant relative to everything else, because everything is doing the exact same thing. Our rulers are shrinking with mass loss, but energy gains in the process balancing out our relative perspective.
Anyway John, that’s what makes the most sense to me logically. It’s just a very weird and bizarre concept to wrap your head around. We’re shrinking over time.
-
You may not want my opinion on this, but I agree that your assertion on destructive superposition is probably correct. I also agree that we do not understand the wave model. In my view, our entire universe is built on two wave types, contraction waves, and expansion waves. That’s it. Particles are contraction waves. Space is an expansion wave. Equal and opposite wave forms. There’s really no such thing as “particles” per se. We’re just a bunch of waves. Contraction waves accelerate inward, and expansion waves decelerate outward. Contraction waves gain energy and lose mass on their journey inward to [0], expansion waves lose energy and gain mass on their journey outward to [1]. The universe is nothing but waves reflecting back and forth, like bouncing a ball up and down, only the total universe operates at 100% efficiency. Contraction waves can move about in the outward direction, but it alters their inward velocity. “Mass-less” particles, like light, roll along the bleeding edge of existence between expansion and contraction, endlessly flipping between expansion (+) and contraction (-).
Anyway, that’s as far as I go on the topic.
-
“I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.”
And here’s my response to this comment.
I think we’re missing something very fundamental about dimension. We define space as 3D, which I get, but something feels off, or missing, or inadequate about that definition. It’s too obvious. Einstein added time as a 4<sup>th</sup> dimension, and I think that breaks the mold in defining what a dimension represents physically or spatially. I personally think the idea of this independent time dimension, as most do on this site I suppose, is wrong. However, that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t a dimension in understanding the nature of our existence or reality. Time is real to us.
On the most fundamental level I see our universe as a line segment. I can’t see any logical reason to assume it is anything more. On the absolute most fundamental mathematical level, our entire universe is 1-dimensional.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
Keep in mind, I am looking at the universe from its most rudimentary form, not what we see necessarily. Looks are deceiving. We cannot trust our eyes.
The way I interpret this is that our universe is completely linear in nature, and that makes perfect sense from a mathematical standpoint. Our universe is a point of existence between [0] and [1]. [0] being the total absence of existence, or the minimum state for a total universe, and [1] being total existence, or the maximum state of a total universe. The two ends are finite states, or finite universes, but both of those end points only represent potential, because the universe can only be in 1 of 3 positions along that line segment. We don’t have to know where it is between [0] and [1]. We merely need to understand that it is not [0] or [1], then we can deduce fundamentally what state it is in presently.
This idea of absolute 1 is a new concept. At least, I have never heard of anyone else discussing it. However, given human nature, I doubt this is exclusive to my thoughts. Just wanted to put that out there. I consider this as potential common knowledge down the road that some may already be considering.
[1] = Absolute Space
[0] = Absence of Space
∞ = Our Universe
Absolute space is the absence of motion. Without motion, nothing can happen. Time doesn’t tick. Energy is meaningless. Matter can’t exist. It is a perfectly balanced existence. I typically view this as a frozen state of the universe, but even there it is difficult to describe in that manner. The universe would be a singular object existing everywhere void of any definable characteristics or properties mathematically. It is a dimensionless state. From our perspective it could only be defined logically with a numeric property of [1]. It’s not nothing. It is, however, an impossible state. In my mind that’s simple to understand. There is no mechanics in a finite value for change. I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.
The same would go for [0]. There is no mechanics in a finite value. Absolute 0 is a little easier to wrap your head around though. Something cannot come from nothing.
Our existence is the empirical evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that our universe is not [0], or [1], and can never reach either end of the universal line segment. And I think that’s most likely the point of the universal machine. It endlessly tries to find the end points, and fortunately for us it never will. States of matter are a lessor reflection of the greater process. We humans have beginnings and ends, for example. Conception = 1. Life = ∞. Death = 0.
Our existence is non absolute from our perspective.
Looking back at [1], we can begin to understand other potential properties in their minimum and maximum values. Time for example, is a perceptual dimension. It doesn’t physically exist contrary to popular belief. As a matter of perspective, we could define time in its absolute maximum longest frequency [1] when the universe equals [1]. Motion becomes obvious in this frozen state, its value would be [0] because times value is [1]. Time and motion must run opposite of each other, and I think that contradicts how we view time at present. We see slowing time as a fading of time with our motion. At C we think T=0. I think the reason for this is that we view time as an independent dimension, and we imagine we are outrunning the effects of the time dimension or something. Not sure. It’s never made any sense to me, so I disregard popular dogma when it doesn’t make sense. I think the proper way to look at it logically is expanding time. It’s a frequency drop with our motion. Time expands and contracts with space. The logic for me is clear. Maximum velocity is [1]. [1] would represent instantaneous motion from A to B, which means time goes to [0] when velocity reaches [1]. It takes 0 seconds to go from A to B instantaneously. When motion stops, time must go to [1] as a matter of perspective, because change ceases to be possible. I think we have a lot of this inverted in science. It’s an easy thing to do, because it is confusing from our perspective, and we’re clinging to Einstein’s universe and our physical sense of reality. Einstein saw time as a physical dimension independent of motion. He imagined us moving through time. Time is not a physical dimension; it is a perceptual dimension derived through motion but manifesting in space. Time expands and contracts with space, because space expands and contracts with motion. But time, like motion, is not something we can put in jar. It occurs.
And what does any of this say about 3D space? Exactly.
I think this…
[0] < ∞ < [1]
…is a 1-dimensional scalar.
What gives a point of matter meaning is the magnitude of its motion and time. It’s not spatially 3D, it is spatially 1-D.
And I know this seems weird.
But, in order to define the space we occupy as 3D we need a clearly defined box for our space to sit inside, because we need 3 points along the outer most boundary to define a physical location within the box. That’s what makes 3D, 3D. Space itself is undefined. It is dimensionless. Yes, we can key in on other points within an imaginary box to set a course, but that’s not defining the larger box, or our universe in this case. We don’t know if there is an edge to the universe, so we can’t know if it’s 3D.
That scalar gives the universe a linear dimension of orientation, inward and outward, which is far more important in setting a course to a destination. Hell, we can keep a target in the window to find out where we’re headed. Our universe is completely homogeneous. We can move in the direction of [0] and [1] from anywhere. Our motion is always 1-dimensional. Our time is always 1-dimensional. What changes is our magnitude, which is also 1 dimensional. I think we can assume each point of matter represents a separate state of dimension. We’re made up of countless dimensions, but fundamentally physical existence is 1-dimensional. We either exist, or we don’t, but the magnitude of that existence is what’s important. That’s what gives our existence meaning.
I see the overall universe expanding in magnitude, while the overall matter contracts in magnitude. Two halves of the whole, but the whole would end in a dimensionless finite state of [1].
Find the edges of the universe, and then I will agree 100% the universe is spatially 3D.
And now I’m starting to get into my concept of motion.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by