[Andy]

I hope I’m in the right place with this post. I’m assuming I am sitting on the edge of discovery with rebel scientists and like-minded critical thinkers. Those who refuse to confine themselves to a safe, comfortable, sealed box, packed with mounds of knowledge they are expected to accept until they can calculate their way out of it, accompanied by absolute proofs. A place where everyone intrinsically knows that knowledge doesn’t come from a box, it comes from human beings who dared to think outside the box. Outside that box lies understanding, which is the ultimate conquest for all critical thinkers. Myself alike. We don’t follow the rules.

A formula means absolutely nothing to anyone without a human being to explain it. Regurgitating knowledge is not an explanation, because it lacks understanding. e=mc^2 is knowledge, but there isn’t a person on the face of the planet, dead or alive, that could explain it, not even Einstein himself.

My approach to understanding the universe is radically different from science, and probably from most around here, which is as much out of necessity as it is a product of who I am as a human being. For me, I want an explanation, not a formula. And I think it’s possible to just understand it all through imagination, reason, and logic, without a single stroke of the pen or a tap on the keyboard. That answer exists, waiting for someone to think it up in their mind and imagine the mechanical process. And you’ll just know it’s right when you know it.

I think one of the greatest mysteries in the universe is how and why we’re here. What animates us? How can we move around, and think, and just exist? It is as improbable in my mind as it is intriguingly and curiously impossible in my mind. Yet here we are. The only thing that could truly exist is space. I’ve felt that way since I was a teenager. That hasn’t changed in nearly 60 years.

Mainstream science proposes a dense ball of energy but offers no explanation of its physical properties or for its existence. In my mind that contradicts the reality of our predicament in understanding the universe. While energy is definable in its actions or general results, it is not definable in terms of its physical existence. You can’t grab a bottle of energy off a shelf. Energy is a byproduct of space, but not a tangible asset like space. It is what space does, as Glenn Borchardt suggests and I thoroughly agree, not what’s applied to space as a third-party magical ingredient giving life to the universe. Energy does not exist in the real world. Energy is a fleeting temporary condition of space, not a permanence like space.

With that thought in mind, clearly space has a tendency towards motion. It can’t help it for whatever reason. The confounding problem is that we have no rational explanation as to why it moves resulting in energy. As critical thinkers, we all need cause and effect, and motion cannot be the cause and effect of its own motion, because motion is undeniably the definition of energy. Energy is never 100% efficient in its application within the universe. Our universe should not exist, yet it does.

Another aspect of the universe becomes abundantly clear in this reasoning. The universe is a machine, so the universe must possess an influx of raw or unrealized potential energy to maintain its own motion. I don’t see any way around it. The universe would also have to be the simplest machine imaginable, because it only consists of one single simple physical ingredient, space. Space in continual motion is what we absolutely must be in the absence of all other tangible ingredients. And our motion, like everything else we observe, is a temporary condition. Enjoy it while it lasts.

On this site, most everyone tends to believe the universe is infinite. What that means exactly depends on who you ask. In a more general consensus globally, some say infinity doesn’t exist. Some think the universe is finite. While still others believe the universe is infinite in extent and time. When there are so many different explanations for the same thing, I tend to the assumption that everyone is wrong, because we aren’t fully understanding the fundamental problem. We’re missing some crucial piece of knowledge to help advance our understanding uniformly. In the absence of that critical piece of knowledge, human beings tend towards assumptions and beliefs. Consensus then propels those assumptions and beliefs to the forefront of knowledge and understanding. It’s a slippery slope.

There is a far greater value to human beings in truly understanding a problem, than knowledge could ever provide a human being. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled with understanding.

So, I propose an idea, and an explanation.

|0|<∞<|1|

That’s all the universe is.

The |0| and the |1| are the binding points of mathematics and numerical logic for the universe. ∞ acts as a natural variable in the above statement, possessing many values at any given moment in time, not one specific value as is defined by mathematics currently. What infinity is defining is derived from the |0| and |1|.

The statement would also tell us that |0| and |1| lies outside the universe, residing as potential to be part of the universe.

∞ itself is a non-absolute, meaning it can be anything mathematically tangible or realistic within our universe. Non-absolute being a matter of perspective, mathematically speaking. 0 and 1 can exist within our universe, but not |0| and |1|. They are special values beyond our reach. They are what drives our universe into being.

It would be irrational to assume something can come from nothing, so |1| must be the fuel source for the universal machine. I see it as a motionless state of space. Once motion begins, it is no longer motionless space. Space converts to tangible mass, mass being defined by the motion it possesses, which we define as energy. The space that we traverse, and mass, must possess motion for us to experience it as part of our universe. Space we traverse is not space, it is mass.

E=mc^2

We are mass energy, and our space is mass energy. Just two different equal but opposite flavors of motion, giving us two different equal but opposite forms of energy in mass.

Something Stephen Hawkings once pondered stuck in my mind. If you took the sum of all positive and negative energy, it’s value would be 0. I think that he was right, and that it answers a long-standing question.

|1|/|0| = ∞

Something and nothing cannot occupy the same state, meaning |1| and |0| cannot occupy the same space physically. They stand divided, separated by an infinite universe.

∞ is a definition of mass energy, because the universe is infinite in nature. Just not the same infinity we imagined it to be. Infinity is motion, and that motion must be constant for space to possess mass energy. As I mentioned in above posts, infinity is the constant of change. It has nothing to do with scale, extent, quantity, or a specific numeric value.

|0| x ∞ = 1, not |1|. 1 being the maximum state of motion/energy, where mass=0 and time=0. It is the transition point from – to + energy, as was explained in previous posts above. I am defining – as contracting mass energy, and + as expanding mass energy.

|1| / ∞ = 0, not |0|. Steven Hawkings. The sum of all energy =0. |1| is motionless space. It is the raw fuel that powers the motion of the universe, and with that comes an endless supply. There’s an irony here. Neither motionless space, nor the universe could be infinite in extent, because motionless space must end where the universe begins, and the universe must end where motionless space begins. And I must caveat that thought with, at any given moment in time.

0 and 1 are the binding numeric values for a calculable universe we can experience.

The universe is trying to solve a mathematical problem with no resolve, because |0| and |1| cannot occupy the same space. Something can’t be nothing, and nothing can’t be something. The solution is ∞, which is a little of both. I am something, but eventually I will become nothing. Which is both horrifying, and oddly comforting to know. The universe will most likely soldier on forever, given there is an endless supply of raw fuel in motionless space to keep it going, and there is nothing to prevent its expansion. A body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force. The universe favors creation. But I’m not clear on that one. That is beyond my skill set for a definitive answer. I’m reasonably certain it will soldier on, but who knows?

That’s greater universal mathematics, and we are the result of that ongoing calculation. Hmmm, GUM. I wonder if it will stick. Pure absolute mathematics, resulting in a non-absolute product, ∞.

Unfortunately, consensus can only verify this answer over time. I cannot find a better solution in all my years of searching, so I leave it to you to decide for yourself.

I think this is as close as we can get to knowing.

Do you agree or not?

[Andy]

One other thing I wish to add to the last post, because the math is so utterly twisted from what anyone would find acceptable or even remotely palatable.

We are a reflection of a greater process, so the mathematics for |0| and |1| invert. What doesn’t work within our understanding of math and the universe we are immersed in, may be perfectly fine in the absolute conditions of the finite universe. It’s not the same place.

Of course, that’s not a testable theory, just a reasonable suspicion.

We are a mirror image of a finite reality beyond our reach.

[Andy]

Does light need an aether?

I know this is going to be hard, if not impossible for anyone around here to accept. But, I have to follow my reasoning no matter where it leads. It explains way too many things to be the mere vivid imagination of a critical thinker.

No, light does not need an aether to move.

Light is surfacing the universal wave.

Light is both a particle, and a “wave”. In some ways, light doesn’t really move, although that’s not really a good way to look at it. Believe me, I’ve gone back and forth on this one and it’s a hard one to visualize. Probably harder to accept. But, it is what it is.

As I have explained previously, there are two flavors of energy related to mass from its motion, contractive mass energy, and expansive mass energy. The expansive mass energy is what we call waves. In sound, waves are generated through series of collisions of matter. Not the same thing. The results are similar in that it generates waves of sound, but mechanically it is a different wave process. Light doesn’t need to collide with anything to move.

Light is a particle caught on the very edge of expansion and contraction, powered by the universal waves motion. When light is at C=0, t=1, mass=x, the wave immediately overtakes it, pushing it back to C=1, t=0, mass=x. The wave passes it, pulling it back to C=0, T=1, mass=x. It is flipping back and forth between a wave and a particle, sliding down the wave while contracting inward with each cycle. It;s like a new light with each cylce as well, because it is accelerating with our acceleration. Light has mass, and although I have refrained from using +/- thus far, it may be easier to understand that light is both + and -, from a standpoint of energy, but cannot be in both states simultaneously. It is somewhat energy neutral due to the fact is flipping back and forth between energy states.

The term mass is hard to talk about at this point, because mass isn’t matter exclusive. Mass simply describes space in motion. The space that we traverse is space in motion, just a decelerating state of motion. That space is expansive mass. When the wave overtakes light, light experiences deceleration to 0, where it immediately comes back into existence as a particle and moves to its maximum possible velocity, where it flips back again as the wave overtakes it again.

You have to consider that space is 1-dimensional. And as I explained it’s a really fat 1-dimension, because the line turns in on itself. The outward direction of space is omnidirectional, where the inward direction is more of a conical shape pointing towards 0. Matters resistance to motion is probably related to the width of the cone, like a scoop of ice cream sitting on an ice cream cone. The wider the cone the more stable your ice cream sitting on top the cone, and the more it’s going to resist motion. Generally speaking. However, that is getting beyond what I do. I’m just looking for general knowledge that can explain things in plain English in a practical manner. I’m not trying to build a nuclear reactor, or even write a scientific paper, as either would be an exercise in futility for someone like me. I don’t possess those sort of skills.

[Andy]

Correction: I meant to say, light is surfing, not surfacing the universal wave.

[Andy]

So let me try and explain this another way. I’ve been doing this a very long time.

I’ve heard the term infinite mass and infinite motion thrown around in science forever and a decade. What the hell does that mean, I’ve wondered.

There is a logical limit to motion at 1. So how could motion ever be infinite?

1 as a definition of motion, is instantaneous motion. Nothing can go faster from A to B, for obvious reason. At least I hope it’s obvious to everyone. You also need a starting point of 0 to confirm or measure your motion. Time is also required to gauge motion. When we accelerate we gain mass, and that is irrefutable. We have hard evidence on that fact. We also know that instantaneous motion is real, because we see it in particle entanglement. As a point in fact, instantaneous motion defines a state of finite motion, from our perspective. To suggest something could move faster than 1 is irrational logic, because you would be invoking some sort of weird time travel scenario, where you ended up at your destination before you moved anywhere. There is also no mathematical limit in how slight your acceleration can be, so mathematically speaking, you could accelerate forever.

The point being, infinite motion requires an upper and lower limit of what it can be. 0<∞V<1. To move infinitely is to never reach a finite limit. We have an upper and lower limit of what motion can physically be. You’re either not moving at 0, or you’re moving without perceiving time and space at 1. Finite limits in all 3 dimensions of existence are reached at v=1, where time=0, and space=0. Ironically, what you notice is the space=0. Space=mass, but matters value would have to go to m=1. It is a finite limit of what matter can be while in perceived motion.

The conflict here is that mass=space, and for space to be tangible mass that we can experience in matter or traversable space, it must possess energy. Energy is derived from motion. Motion in the universe can only do 4 things logically, accelerate, decelerate, stop, or reach it’s maximum logical limit. To go from acceleration to deceleration, or vice versa, motion must always pass through a finite state of either 0 or 1. And because matter is defined by its motion and time, it must follow the same laws of motion. As I suggested, C is not a limit of motion, it is a stop sign. It is a transition point between the acceleration and deceleration of matter and traversable space. If that limit of C is reached in matter, matter goes to 1, and space goes to 0, where matter than flips and becomes part of traversable space, decelerating while expanding outward. Bang, an explosion.

And the 5th thing motion could do, which it can never do, is hold steady at a constant velocity, contrary to what we observe in the motion of light. The only true constant is change. If anything in the universe could hold a steady velocity time wouldn’t function properly. Change would be erratic and unpredictable. Everything has to be doing the same thing relative to each other. Matter accelerates at a constant rate, making change constant in matter, and space decelerates at a constant rate, making change in space constant. That’s what makes the universe infinite. Space that we perceive is expanding and decelerating, and matter that we perceive is contracting and accelerating. Time creates our steady and consistent relative perspective, making everything appear somewhat static in nature. The laws of motion couldn’t work any other way.

Infinity needs two opposing finite reference points to exist. If someone claims the universe is infinite in extent, they are claiming the universe is static in extent, making the entire universe finite in extent. It’s a really big finite, but finite none the less. They are contradicting themselves. They are making infinity static. Static=finite. Infinity is an active state of change, relying on finite upper and lower limits to define itself as infinite. It can be no other way logically.

The universe is both finite and infinite, because it possesses properties of both. What defines them is a function of time. If T=1, space=1, because motion=0. If T=0, space=0, because motion=1. Motionless space does go on forever, in a state of 1 as measured from time in the universe, but technically, it is 1, or finite, not infinite. The universe is <1 and >0, making it infinite in change only. The only question that remains is whether or not OUR universe will continue changing forever, and whether or not it had a beginning. I don’t have an answer for those questions. That is beyond what I do here. I know it wasn’t anything like a Big Bang. It’s a wave, with matter being derived from |1|, or the outer limit, not |0|, or the inner limit. The wave creates matter as it expands outward into motionless space. Matter contracts inward and dissipates/converts into traversable space, as the universal wave continues to expand outward and expand. Matter is continually being fed into the universe as it expands. Something Einstein was working on before he passed in order to keep the vacuum density in space.

I think what we’re dealing with is the collapse of motionless space. An unlimited supply of potential mass energy. It’s the raw fuel that keeps the wave trucking along. The perfect wave.

[Andy]

Let me clarify a statement. Acceleration only occurs in a single direction of motion, and deceleration only occurs in the opposite direction of motion. I realized there may be a little confusion in the way I have written some of this. I see these things in my head and take for granted it’s not easy translate fully sometimes to others. You have to reverse course along the motion axis completely to go into a decelerating state, and head outward. That middle point is C, where acceleration flips to from acceleration to deceleration. It has to do with your position in the universe. You are always contracting inward when you are in perceived motion, until you try to to breach the limit of C. That’s why I say you have to pass through a finite value when you reverse course, where you contractive energy flips to expansive energy. You can flip prematurely at C where your motion is forced to 0, or wait for an inevitable 1, which also leads to 0. Basically what I’m saying is that from C<1 is acceleration, and from 0<C is deceleration.

Hope I’m explaining that well enough.

[Andy]

Keep in mind, the speed of light is arbitrarily slow. The universe itself is estimated to be about 92 billion light years across. That would make the speed of light 1/92,000,000,000th the maximum logical potential of motion at 1. We’re sitting on the bleeding edge of C somewhere, contracting inward. Barely over the line.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

Another thought occurred to me. You could theoretically be in two places at once, at least by observation. If something moved from A to B, then from B to A, at the finite motion of 1, where time=0 and space=0, it could appear to be in two places at once from a third party perspective. Just a thought.

[Andy]

David, I saw where you replied to me about John Erik, and now your post is gone. Can’t find anything on infinitesimals by him. Not sure what infinitesimal even means. That’s not a unit of measure. I did see where he was heavy into aether, but not sure what any of that could possibly have to do with what I wrote about. I’m referring to infinity as a state of change, not size. We measure things in finite terms mathematically. Size doesn’t have anything to do with infinity, big or little.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

So, it looks like I’m chatting with myself at the moment, but I wanted to get this thought down.

I have more proof that the mathematical definition is wrong, and that infinity is seriously misunderstood. Cantor was wrong. And respectfully, anyone that believes 0<1<∞, is wrong. There’s no polite way to say it. Maybe misguided?

If you take this set, 0<∞a<1, and claim ∞a are parts of the whole, and then take this set, 1<∞b<2, and claim ∞b are the parts of the whole, ∞a=∞b. There can’t logically be more variables between (0,1) or (1,2). It’s just invented redundant logic. The only difference between them is the magnitude of those parts, which is a .10 versus a 1.10 respectively. They are 11x bigger in the second set. And the only reason they are 11 times bigger is because they were derived from an arbitrary base 10 numbering system we invented. We invented it based on the digits of our hands so we could perform basic math with our hands for trade and commerce, which we were already doing way back when. We’re treating the universe mathematically like it’s an accounting problem.

There is NO relevance to counting, quantity, or scale, in relationship to infinity. If we multiply either end number by .5, we end up with two parts in each set that are 1/2 the magnitude of the greatest number in the set. The parts can never be greater than whole from which they were derived.

This

0<1<∞

Makes no sense. Parts are derived from a finite whole in the real world, unlike money where we just print more. You can’t just arbitrarily invent the number 2, and then claim there are an infinite number of things between or beyond 0 and 2. Parts are derived from wholes, which would make infinity derived from 1 in the above logic, which makes the parts greater than the whole in magnitude.

It is false logic.

There is a finite number of possible parts between 0 and 1 at any given finite moment in time, because the parts define the whole. Under the conditions of infinite time (constant of change), there is an infinite number of parts, because the quantity is in a constant state of change. Claiming there is a greater number beyond 1 is an arbitrary assumption in logic. And then claiming it is infinite is based on a belief, not reason or logic.

I’ve had 3 people agree with my interpretation so far, but I really haven’t taken it out for spin in the swamp too many times. I was told it would confuse people. Against their better judgement, which is probably a mistake on my part, I cannot support adding another term to science to appease potential confusion. Everyone is already confused. The definition and our understanding of infinity is wrong. It is not “a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.” Infinity is not a specific numeric value real or imagined, and it can never be greater than the whole from which is was derived.

|0|<∞<|1| That’s the universe.

Beyond our universe lies a motionless state of space. It becomes part of our universe when we expand into it, converting to mass once it starts moving. We experience mass, not space. Space is 1 dimensional, with a built in derivative dimension of time. v=0, space=1, time=1. Motionless space represent a dimensionless point mathematically. An end point, with a finite value of |1|. Nothing is greater than |1| in the universe. It is the greatest countable number as far as the universe is concerned. Anything greater is an invention of man.

Our universe is a wave.

That is what the logic tells us. Whether this wave will expand forever is not known by me, I just know it is what the universe is. I will say, based on Newtons 1st law of motion, it probably will continue expanding forever, because there is nothing to prevent its motion. The universe itself appears to be a constant in my reasoning, because it represents the constant of change. A body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force.

I call this the Joan Wave Theory. It’s a theory derived from logic and deductive reasoning, not mathematics.

We have dimension wrong too. Our universe is built on 1D space+1D motion+1D time=3D universe. Motion is a reciprocal term of energy. Space acquires energy from its motion and converts to tangible mass that we can experience. e=mc^2. Motion comes in two flavors, accelerating mass, and decelerating mass, giving us two equal and opposite flavors of energy. Space is decelerating motion in what we call space. Space that we traverse is mass in a decelerating condition. Matter is in an accelerating state of mass. There are no dimensions of length width and height. Those are measuring tools derived from motion and time that allows us to determine the scale or dimension of mass. Motion allow us to experience mass physically, and time allows is perceive mass perceptually. @v=1, m=0, t=0. @v=0, m=1, t=1. That describes the inner and outer limits of the universe respectively. Matter is created from the outer perimeter, where you have a high mass, low energy, low entropy state. It contracts and accelerates inward. Once it reaches the inner limit, where v=1, s=0, t=0, it converts to the space we traverse. It flips or inverts, and then decelerates back out to the perimeter as it expands. Motion starts on 0 and increases to the maximum at 1, and then decreases back to 0. Mass is space, and mass is matter. Energy is the motion of both. Equal and opposites.

That’s what the logic is telling us. It’s the only thing that makes logical sense.

[Andy]

Can we not edit these posts?

I made a slight error. Not all that important, however, I left this out unintentionally. Those who agreed with my interpretation of infinity suggested I create another term, rather than try to correct the definition of infinity, because it would confuse people.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

All motion occurs 3 dimensionally, because it impacts time mass motion simultaneously. And why wouldn’t it be? This is exactly what we observe in nature. The direction of motion is 1 dimensional, because it occurs in space, which is 1-dimensional. Space is the only physical ingredient in our make up, and the only thing that can move. Energy/motion and time aren’t tangibles things you can hold in your hand. They are what space is doing. The orientation of space is inward and outward. When matter travels inward it is in a contracting state. That gives space energy density. When matter travels outward it is in an expanding state. It loses energy density because it gains mass. The motion that we observe reduces the natural inward acceleration. We are slowing our motion down technically, which is the exact opposite of what we observe. It looks like acceleration, because all motion is relative, but it is deceleration. You have to look at space as a line running in and out. It’s a fat line, but 1-dimensional none the less. Any motion that we perceive along the x or y axis is really motion along the z axis. Mass is not gaining with our acceleration, it is expanding along the z axis as we decelerate, or slow our inward motion. Our perception of time is bound to mass and it expands and contracts with our motion. Expanding mass is perceived as slower time, and contracting mass is perceived as faster time. We are not traveling through time. Time is part of our 3D composite material in matter. Mass is the physical ingredient, where motion is the active ingredient, and time is the perceptual ingredient. The space we traverse is exactly the opposite, but equal. Time is in an expanding state for space, and a contracting state for matter. C as we see it is the rate of contraction, or change. You cannot exceed C because you would reverse course in your motion. Reversing course leads to a finite value of 0. C is not a limit of motion, it is a stop sign. It is the point at which your natural acceleration inward would flip to deceleration outward. There is an arrow of time that points inward with matter, and one that points outward for the space we move through. It’s all 1D space though, at its core.