Member Andy
MemberForum Replies Created
-
“I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.
This seems like circular reasoning which rules out disagreement with
your current thinking. Someone, not me, might point at “energy” and sing
your methodology built the universe from energy and Yes, you would say
that’s not consistent with your thinking, but So what?”I wanted to circle back around on this comment.
[-e] + [+e] = [1] (assuming e=.5)
I’m calling it absolute space, because when I close my eyes and imagine a universe without energy that’s all I see is a dimensionless black void. Dimensionless being an important distinction from endless, because it is one thing only equal and relative to itself.
I would agree 100% that someone could consider it in this manner…
[-e] + [+e] = [e]
In the end it is merely a label for a dimensionless state of the universe. And maybe that is a better way to label it for acceptance sake.
absolute energy = absolute space.
If you did look at absolute space as absolute energy, it could also be considered pure energy. The problem with this idea of “pure energy”, is that it must be absolute in nature. Meaning, it is neither positive or negative from our perspective. Positive energy doesn’t mean anything without its negative opposite and vice versa. Pure energy must be an absolute state of energy, because +e or -e is only describing 1/2 of energies potential. The whole is pure, meaning it can be positive or negative. Pure energy though, has no physical properties. It would just exist, exactly like space just exists. So what’s the difference?
I think the argument would be more about semantics than actual answers.
Separating the two into independent objects doesn’t make a lot of sense in my mind. Space we can easily imagine existing. Space must exist, because there is no way to delete it. It follows with the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I would replace the term “energy” with “space”. Superimposing an element of energy on top of space is speculative. There is no reason for anything but space to exist logically.
Of course we’re down on the most fundamental level of understanding, so evidence is sparse, albeit, non-existent. And that’s a literal guarantee when we’re looking at the universe on the most fundamental level. A rational consensus is the only way out on that level, unfortunately.
Sure, someone could debate what I’m saying til we’re both blue in the face. What would be the point in that? Everyone loses, because we can’t even agree on what the universal machine is made from. It’s as you say, a circular argument. The existence of energy is a belief, not a fact. The existence of space is a fact, not a belief. Beliefs have no place in science.
If we say energy and space coexist, and they can both be in a potential absolute state mathematically, then we have to toss space out of science. It is nothing more than a fixed immovable object or underlying superconductor that energy moves along. Space is no longer meaningful or relevant to the problem, because it can’t do anything. It’s sole purpose would be as a substrate for energy to exist on. That contradicts most of what we observe and understand.
Space is the fundamental baseline of existence as far as I can rationalize the problem. I can’t imagine it any other way. Space is the primary building block for everything. Energy is realized through the actions of space.
I was thinking about the fundamentals.
The final answer to the universe must by the sum total of all the variables that make up the universe. We’re left with a meaningless value derived from our mathematics and numeric system. [1]. It makes sense logically. Calculating the universe wouldn’t work very well without a direct correlation to a numeric system. We have to be able to get back to [1] and [0]. [-e] + [+e] = [1], and [-e] – [+e] = [0]. It is fundamentally necessary to maintain a direct link to an upper and lower limit. We are the linear order of magnitude that lies between these two values.
I just keep coming to the same conclusions every time I go through the logic. A direct link is a must.
-
“I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.”
I will present my case, and you’ll see it. No doubt in my mind. Is it right? That’s the question.
-
“I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.”
At work, but I wanted to respond to a couple of things really quick. I’ll elaborate more when I find the time.
There is a lot of information I haven’t expanded on, or included. This post was more specific to ‘space’, with a preview of things to come. There is only so far we can go with math. Math can only lead us to an answer. Once that answer is realized we must set down our pens and rationalize the result. I’ve given a perfect answer with no ambiguity based on the words of Stephen Hawking. It is by definition, flawless math. The answer is [1]. That’s it. And that fundamental answer is going to be somewhat anti-climactic. Math cannot go beyond the end or the beginning, by default. The answer to the fundamental universe is what drives physics, and math, and geometry. If you take all the energy in the universe and combine it we’re left with [1] thing. That’s as far as we can take it mathematically.
What does it mean?
My answer is space, because anything more or less is speculative. Space is all we’ve ever proven to exist. Even peering into atoms on the atomic level all we’ve found is more space. It’s the lines between space and more space that puzzles us. No one has ever been able to quantify it. I see it as the dividing line between expansive and contractive energy, where energy is defined by space, motion, and time. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Energy is real, but only in so far as it’s an amalgamation of the process. A label describing many things.
In the end, as much as I hate to say it, all that remains is a consensus in the definition I have laid out. As far as I’m concerned space is the only logical physical ingredient in matter, based on the facts we know. It’s all we need, but space needs to do something for us to experience it.
So, we have an answer of [1]. It’s a real answer. My pinning of the proverbial tail on the imaginary donkey is no more and no less valid than the next person.
The answer is space.
“I am not wrong.”
There way too much of the above which only serves to foster close mindedness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I stated, every theory is partially correct, but every theory must also contain equal parts of wrong and/or unknown. I’m certainly no exception to the truths I see.
That declaration was simply a play on wording. A creative liberty to invoke a response. I think it worked.
“I think and hope that you will see ourselves as kindred spirits.”
Absolutely!
-
Understood John.
Respectfully, and sincerely, I interpreted your title as more of a non-specific open forum to discuss whatever, because it is titled, “Decontamination of Physics”, not ether theory. I consider my thoughts on the universe logic based which contradicts mainstream physics. Time travel doesn’t exist in my reasoning. Applying logic more or less decontaminates physics.
My apologies.
I think we’re both starving for some collaboration and feedback, which is pretty much non-existent here, unfortunately.
I’m not clear on ether theory. I need to understand more before I comment. I don’t know where these ether particles come from, why they exist, or why they’re moving. I don’t understand the properties of them. They seem like really small massless photon’s, or neutrino’s.
Anything theorized without mass tends to move at the maximum velocity of C in science, without explanation. They don’t have much gravitational influence, but tend to be influenced by gravity. Which is kind of a contradiction in my mind.
-
I will go back and try to wrap my head around it John.
Try not to get wrapped up on mainstream reference. I grab whatever makes the most sense. Most of the mainstream makes little to no sense, and they seem to be perfectly fine with that, oddly enough. They would even argue that nonsense is perfectly normal for the universe. We’re supposed to accept nonsense as a natural fact of nature. And that’s bizarre, considering they’re using pure logic to manipulate and understand the universe, and then abandoning it when they can’t make sense of it. They may as well claim pink unicorns are driving the universe.
Though, they aren’t always wrong. They just have theories riddled with paradoxes that are perfectly okay with them. The science fiction writers love it, especially time traveling.
I’ve hi-jacked a lot of this thread trying to get to the ether. I think it’s fair for you to know where I’m coming from first. I have an entirely new paradigm in my head. Is it right? Can’t say. Is it wrong? Can’t say. No one can. It’s curiously simple and makes practical sense on a number of levels. There are some things I say that I have a high degree of certainty on, and other things I say a fairly low level of certainty on. Gravity is one of those things, along with ether. I haven’t really gotten there yet. I started on the ends at [0] < ∞ < [1], and I am working my way to the middle. I have a high degree of certainty on the ends. I think it’s proven as much as it can be. [-e] + [+e] = [1]. [-e] – [+e] = [0]. That was the missing piece to my reasoning. The universe begins with pure logic, and evolves into mathematics. Science blew past the ends and went straight to the complex. Gravity. We still don’t have a consensus on it.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by
-
And the other issues I have trouble wrapping my head around is light. How does it move? Is it a particle or a wave?
I strike a match, and photons come pouring out. Are they accelerating to C? There is nothing in that flame that would allow anyone to assume there was enough energy to accelerate anything to C.
There has never been a sensible explanation for lights movement, just mounds of theory and educated guesses.
So any theory predicting the behavior of light in the ether also has to unambiguously answer the question about lights motion and unambiguously explain what light is. If light is strictly a particle then collisions with other particles would most likely have a far faster and far greater catastrophic impact on the particle than merely shifting wavelength. I don’t think it would make it out of a planet or stars atmosphere. Shooting a bullet into water and that bullet quickly comes to halt.
This is me thinking very simply of course.
I think the wave particle duality is true, based on experimental evidence. Light is a wave and a particle.
If I translate that to what I’m suggesting, it begins to make sense in my mind.
Light is powered by the motion of the universe, propagating as an expansion wave (like an ocean wave) and a contraction wave (particle). Maximum velocity is a relative state. Assume S equals space. So, when S=1, C=0 (particle), the particle immediately snaps back the opposite direction because its over taken by expansion, where S=0, C=1 (wave). And then it snaps back again, and again, and again. It’s rolling with the universal rate of expansion and contraction, flipping back between expansion and contraction. In a contracted state, it’s a particle, in an expanded state it is a wave. That’s the duality problem.
Light moves at the maximum state in both directions. When a maximum state is reached it’s the end of the line in either direction, so the energy is flipping continuously between pure positive energy and pure negative energy. As a particle it’s mass is 0, because C=0. As a wave it’s traveled as far as it can, because S=0. It runs out of energy in either direction, but gets renewed on the flip side.
I’ve often laid this out as:
Particle State: S=1, C=0, T=1
Wave State: S=0, C=1, T=0
When minimum and maximum value is reached on either end of the motion spectrum, things flip positive to negative, or negative to positive.
Light is the middle C of the universe, powered by the inherent motion of the universe from opposite directions. It doesn’t need an external source of energy to power it. It just needs to exist.
-
I know everyone here is big on ether as a cause of the redshift. Tired light. So many people have tried to advance that idea, but it always seems to fall flat. I can’t really judge it a lot, because there is a lot of way smarter people than myself working that problem. I have to assume they have good reason for rejecting the idea in favor of motion, as you and others may have good reason for rejecting accepted science.
What we do know is that separation of energy at a velocity causes redshift. That’s a scientific fact. They also noticed acceleration in the problem. I can’t imagine why ether density or wind would have anything to do with that anomaly.
Complexity is a relative perspective. We can’t know what we know until we know it. Answers usually tend to be pretty cut and dry once you know them. For me, everything I say is cut and dry. Then again, I’m the one saying it. I have no idea how it reads from the other side.
I could have jumped out of the gate and claimed, we’re moving inward and away from distant galaxies. Inward is a valid direction of motion. That would have been the simple way to explain it. My way also explains mass, motion, energy, time, and other puzzling features of the universe, including homogeneity. It’s a lot to take in all at once. I’ve been working on this for about 15 years.
I think there is an ether most likely. I think the most probable cause of gravity is ether (dimensional) collapse. I also think the ether is most likely responsible for the vacuum in space due to its collapse. Essentially the either is the lowest level of particle existence before their negative contractive energy flips to positive expansive energy. The higher density of particles surrounding bodies generates a higher negative output in the ether.
I am far less confident on this concept.
-
Dark Energy is a mythical creature as well. There is only two forms of energy, expansive and contractive. That’s it. Dark Energy is unnecessary in the explanation. I suspect C is variable in the process, and is merely a relative constant. There are no static constants as near as I can imagine. There is a range of motion between 0 and 1, 0 meaning no motion, and 1 meaning instantaneous. But we cannot create motion, only transform whatever motion is inherent in the process at any given moment in time. Whether or not we can travel to some other location in the universe instantaneously is not known to me. That again is beyond my scope of understanding. That’s not what I do. I don’t create things, I just try to understand them. I have no theory for that sort of thing.
-
In short John, our galaxy is technically moving away from other galaxies, exactly as we observe. Though, our direction of motion is inward, not outward, and technically we are gaining space between points A to B. However, we haven’t really changed position like we imagine. The entire universe is not expanding outward from the imaginary center. There is some lateral movement towards other galaxies due to gravitation effects. I think our Milkyway is going to eventually collide with Andromeda if I’m not mistaken. But there was never a central point of origin for the entire universe, as in a big bang. There is no inflation going on, and there was most certainly never any “hyper-inflationary” period. It’s a zero sum game. [-e] – [+e] = [0].
-
And if you ask me how big the universe is, I’m going to say there is no possible way of knowing. Our view of distance is always changing. There is no physical way to quantify distance in an ever changing reality. Distance is a relative state like everything else. The universe appears a little bigger than it did a moment ago from a contractive standpoint, and it appears a little smaller than it did a moment ago from an expansive standpoint. The rate of change is what’s important to understand, and that I don’t have an answer to either. It might be possible to hone in on that number, but I don’t know. Questions like that are beyond my scope of understanding, and not really of much interest to me. It would be neat to know, but it’s not useful for me to know it. I can’t do anything with that answer. It would probably be useful to the men and women inventing things to help us to better our lives and assure our continued collective survival.
-
Yes, I can John. Not sure anyone likes the idea, but it’s the way I see it. May not be easy to wrap the brain around. Took me a while to grasp it. This concept hit me in 2008. It was one of those eureka moments people talk about that washed over me. Rippled over me for the next few months. My level of certainty on this is pretty high, although I have no means to prove it mathematically. It’s well beyond my abilities. I see the machine.
Expansive energy is positive, and contractive energy is negative. The universe is also homogeneous, so its center can be anywhere you’re sitting within it.
Motion is 1-dimensional. It can only occur in two directions, inward or outward, and that’s it. When matter is moving inward it is in a contracting state, and when matter is moving outwards, it is in an expanding state, or a less contracting state. A body appearing at rest is moving inward. Any observed motion occurs in the outward direction. All matter moves inward at C, but any motion in the opposite direction deducts from the inward motion. At rest we gain negative energy, and when we move in the opposite direction, outward, we gain positive energy, or it can be viewed as a deduction in negative energy.
As we move inwards, space between distant galaxies appears to expand. And really, it is gaining distance, but not like we think it is. Distance galaxies aren’t really moving outward and away from each other, they’re moving inward and becoming a little less relevant to each other as they contract. Everything we use to investigate the universe is made from contracting matter. We’re oblivious to the process because everything is relative to each other.
Mass is a point where negative energy is converting to positive energy. Matter is slowly flipping inside out at its core as it contracts. It’s a full change in direction. To go from full inward to full outward motion creates a delay, or resistance to outward motion on the opposite end.
It takes a while to fully wrap your head around the mechanics. Once you see it, you see it.
The universe is split in two halves of the whole. Half the universe is contracting inward, and the other half is expanding outward. It’s not really going anywhere, it’s just rolling in on itself in a wave with a frequency of 1. If that makes sense. I clearly see the mechanics, but it’s difficult to explain, and even harder to believe. I see it though.
-
I’ll add 1 other little piece of information. Homogeneity in the universe is the absence of dimension. The fundamental universe, [1], is a homogeneous state of existence. Distance, motion, time, orientation, etc., has no meaning. It’s just one thing that exists. A single point geometrically. All the properties of the universe that we experience are a derivative of motion and time. That fundamental homogeneity remains part of our physical reality, but the universe has an orientation to it because of motion and time.
-
One of life’s little ironies.
The more rational or logical life behaves, the dumber it’s perceived by human beings. The more irrational and illogical life behaves, the more intelligent it’s perceived by human beings.
I can’t recall seeing an ant dance for no apparent reason, or watching an alligator commit suicide in a fit of depression.
And that’s why I consider AI a questionable possibility. I can’t imagine building something that intentionally or unknowingly churns out absurd answers, for no apparent reason, or believes blue is prettier than green. We tend to heap on more logic and data to artificially simulate human intelligence. That will never work. Human beings aren’t purely logical creatures. We’re quite irrational at times.
Pure logic possesses 0 intelligence.
-
I can’t help but consider the possibility that geometry may be describing the human minds computational capability to instantaneously create 3D images out of 1D space, while not actually serving much purpose in describing the fundamental universe.
I think that may apply to all of our inventions in numbering and mathematics. All of what we created numerically and mathematically were invented for commerce and construction, not science. They roughly work at describing nature, but can’t fully describe it. We follow it as if it is the answer to everything, naively. We believe it. The fact is, our math and numbers have also led us to believe we can travel backward in time. We think negative and positive is a physical reality. Absurd.
The universe is not numbers, or math, or geometry. Those things are derivatives of the human imagination.
The universe is never wrong. Every answer it leaves behind for us to ponder was 100% correct, without probability, without consideration for us, or our math, or our numbers, or our geometry, and without fail. The universe never makes a mistake.
As for humans, well, we are prone to believe just about anything, literally.
-
“After said that, I don’t believe in Big Beng theory but in continuity of universe”
I give that probability of a Big Bang about a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being a physical reality.
Lets just call it a 0% chance, for simplicity’s sake. 😉
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by