Let’s get physicist

Let’s get physicist July 17, 2018

Seems everything I post about is based on comments or messages in my email. I’m sharing this latest message as a blog post on the expectation that someone who understands physics better than I do will either correct my ignorance of the subject or they’ll correct the sender of this message. Because I don’t know what he’s talking about, and I don’t think he does either.

I copied his email below in italics:

________

Everything that humanity had been taught about the universe is completely wrong, physicists and cosmologists are not even in the ballpark. The big bang, curved space-time, black holes, particle constructs, quantum filaments, multidimensionality, and spatial inflation are just imaginary notions without any actual facts. Physicists use invented equations as a simulation of facts just as theist use scriptures as a simulation of facts. Scientists only interpreted their data to support their notions and exclude any other explanations for the phenomena’s we see. They are invested in their beliefs systems just as theist are invested in their notions. The world is awash in Alice-in-Wonderland delusions.

The truth has always been right in front of us waiting to be recognized:

What is there more of than anything else in the universe? The answer is the physical volume composing the universe; it is everywhere we look out, and everywhere we look in. I say physical volume because it has three obvious physical properties being its height, width, and length. Physical properties cannot exist without a physical causation. We know that space factually exists because we can see it, touch it, move through it, and measure it; space is an undisputable tangible fact. If space did not have a physical causation, then it would be magical; and if the vast majority of the universe, being its volume is magical, then everything would exist within a magical realm, and might as well be magical in of themselves.

At this point, the question becomes philosophical with only two possibilities; either the universe is magical, or absolutely physical in every way shape and form; it cannot be both ways because each is contrary to the other. Religion is magical, and science is factual, and since science should only deal with observable factual data, the conclusions herein are based solely upon provable physical/tangible facts. We will start with the most abundant physical fact we have which is the physical volume composing space itself.

How much space is there? We can use a finite bubble of volume with simple logic and semantics to decipher and answer this question. Ask yourself, can a finite volume of space exist within a greater context of nonexistence, that is, a bubble of volume ‘within’ nothingness? Using semantics, nothingness means there is nothing there. Logically, if the context is nonexistent, then there is nothing for anything to exist within. Something within nothing is a contradiction of terms and structurally impossible. Logically, a finite volume can only structurally exist within a greater context of volume. In other words, if any finite volume exists, regardless of the amount, it can only exist within a spatial infinity. The volume of space has no structural choice but to be a spatial infinity to physically exist.

We can numerically quantify infinite volume (space,) because it is a single continuum of volume, therefore a single unit, thus its spatial values can only be measured as one ‘height,’ times one ‘width,’ times one ‘length,’ notated as 1³. But, because it is also an infinity, it is numerically quantified as ‘1³ times infinity’ (1³.) “One,” is the working numerical value, and “infinity” is the constant. This allows any finite volume to be individually quantified within the context of infinity.

Taking this question, a bit further; can something come to exist within a context of nonexistence? For the same reason that physical volume cannot exist within a greater context of nonexistence, physical volume cannot have a beginning, because that would be coming into existence within something that is not there, thus, space has no structural choice but to have always existed. The physical volume composing space must be eternal to exist at all. Space cannot have an origin/beginning because that would be a structural and conceptual paradox. Logically, there cannot be something before space, space itself is an eternal origin.

The physical properties composing the volume of space cannot just magically exist, space must have a tangible substantive causation. This composing substance cannot be particle based because particles exist within space and need space between them to move about. As well, it cannot be energy based because energy in any form is a byproduct of matter. The only non-paradoxical substantive solution is that space must be a single homogeneous continuum of a composing substance. Because physical volume is infinite, then its composing substance is also infinite. The only quantifiable value that can represent its relative homogeneous density is 1; that is, 1-magnitude of density, notated as 1m. When quantified with infinity, 1m times infinity (1m,) the equation then numerically quantifies the substantive density composing the physical volume as a spatial continuum of an infinite substance. Combine with volume, now the equation becomes . The sum of this equation always equals 1; it is a numeric equation for physically quantifying the infinite volume and substance composing physical space.

Since physical volume must exist first for particles and motion to exist within, and particles need a composing substance to formulate their existence, then particles must be a byproduct of the physical volume. There is simply nothing else to derive particles from. The only factor that can change in the physical volume is its density. That requires a physical force to cause.

A single substance can only exert a single force towards itself; this is because there is nothing else to exert a force towards. The only internal force that could cause a change in its density is a magnetic propensity towards itself. A magnetic propensity towards itself only has two possible directions it can take, attraction towards a greater or lesser density. Analyzing these two possibilities clearly demonstrates which magnetic propensity is correct.

Analysis one: If a finite volume (bubble) of a ‘lesser density’ existed within an ambient volume of a greater density, and magnetic attraction was towards the lesser density, the greater density would attract into the volume of the lesser density, increasing its density until equalizing with the ambient background density. As well, if a finite volume of a ‘greater density’ existed within the physical volume of a lesser density, the greater density would also attract into the lesser density, diffusing until equalizing with the lesser ambient background density. Attraction towards a lesser density would always fill in the lesser density until equalized. If greater density were a magnetic attraction towards lesser density, any differentiation in any form would always equalize back to the ambient background density. This is non-conducive towards generating a material universe.

Analysis two: If a finite volume (bubble) of a ‘greater density’ existed within an ambient volume of a lesser density, and lesser density is attracted towards a greater density, that would result in a perpetual collapse of the lesser ambient background density into the finite volume of the greater density, generating progressively greater densities. As well, if a finite volume of a ‘lesser density’ existed within an ambient background of greater density, the lesser density would also attract towards the greater ambient density, dissipating and equalizing into the ambient density. This allows for both consolidation and diffusion of density.

If lesser density is magnetically attracted towards greater density, any differentiation having a greater density would cause a perpetual attraction of lesser density into the greater density. This is conducive towards generating a material universe. Therefore, the magnetic propensity of physical volume must be a mono-magnetic attraction towards a greater density. This mono-magnetic attraction is called ‘Monomagneticattraction;’ and notated as Ma or M.

The structural density of physical volume is “1ᵐ (one-magnitude of density,) and along with its force “M,” is then numerically quantified as 1Mm (one-magnetic-magnitude of density.) So, the force of physical volume is a Monomagneticattraction towards a finite volume of greater density. Mm (Magneticmagnitude) is defined as the substance, and 1Mm (one-Magneticmagnitude) is its structural density and force. The complete mathematical description quantifying the physical structure of space is then written as , which numerically quantifies its volume, substance, force, and duration as a single eternal homogeneous continuum. It is the foundational equation describing the structural nature of the universe.

So, what do we call this physical volume composing space? We can call it “Protospace.” ‘Proto,’ because it substantively exists first; and ‘space,’ because it is a spatial continuum. Protospace is the least state of physical existence. It is composed of three spatial dimensions, one substance, and one force.

The structural existence of physical volume (Protospace) has no construct of time because it has no beginning. Time is only an arbitrary measurement of duration. Without a beginning, there is nothing to measure. However, if an event occurs within Protospace, that is a reference point that can be measured from, but it would only be an arbitrary measurement, not a physical component of the event itself. Time is simply a vector, no different from the measurements of direction or position. In other words, time is only an arbitrary measurement of duration, just as an inch is only an arbitrary measurement of length, neither cause nor effect what they measure.

To visualize Protospace, imagine a transparent endless homogeneous spatial density. It has no sound, no temperature, no up down sideways or perspective, no time, no particles, no energy, no gravity, no light or colors, and no motion. The physical volume composing Protospace cannot rip, twist, bend, curve, ripple, or vibrate; it is just a constant homogeneous continuum of volume. The substance composing Protospace, in finite volumes (finite density fields,) can condense or dissipate through Monomagneticattraction and can coalesce into the formations generating the material universe. Think about that, one substance with one force composing the totality of the universe; it cannot structurally be more elementary or simple than that.

Why is Protospace so important? because it’s the stuff that the material universe is made of. Matter and energy did not come from nowhere, they came from something, and Protospace is the only substance that exists before their creation. Something cannot come from nothing. The substance that composes the physical volume of space, is also the substance that ultimately composes all the phenomena composing the material universe, including life itself.

((Definitional note: The ‘physical universe’ and ‘material universe’ are two different things. Protospace represents only the physical volume composing the infinite space formulating the universe, and thus is defined as the ‘Physical Universe.’ Finite quantities of particles, energy, and gravity represent only the ‘Material Universe.’ The finite material universe exists within the infinite volume composing the physical universe. The physical universe does not have a beginning, but the material universe does have a beginning.))

((Definitional note: Matter is an assemblage of particles; energy and gravity are a byproduct of matter.))

What facts and evidence do we have to support the existence of Protospace? Well, we have the tangible physical volume of space itself, and we have the logic of substantive causation. Those are extremely compelling evidence for the existence of Protospace. But, we also have one more profound piece of evidence called ‘Dimensional Symmetry Fields Formations’ (DSFF,) which is a systematical map quantifying and formulating matter from the substance composing Protospace into the formations composing the material universe. DSFF is a step-by-step fractal progression from Protospace to the formations composing DNA. That formational map, in of itself, is as good as it gets for direct evidence supporting the existence of Protospace. Protospace unifies every aspect of the universe, regardless of their form, as the derivatives of one substance and force. Imagine that, one substance with one force composing the totality of the universe; structurally, it cannot be any more elementary and unifying than that.

All that was based on the simple fact that the properties of physical volume must have a substantive causation to exist. Protospace turned out to be the Rosetta Stone.

Would you like to talk about this more?

____________

I replied to this email saying that I only read the first paragraph, which appeared to be unsupported assertions and omissions or misrepresentations, and did he have any actual scientific data to support his position? He assured me that he did, and that if I had read his whole message above, I would have seen it. So I wrote back again:

____________

Since you said you had hidden scientific support for your position in your original email, I read every paragraph but didn’t find anything that would qualify as scientific data. Just post the links for any peer reviewed research supporting or validating what you’re talking about.

You said some things that are literally nonsense, like numerically quantifying an infinite volume, or that time is arbitrary, that the volume of space is tangible, and a few other things along those lines. But thank you for the admission that religion is a belief in magic. You got that right at least.

Otherwise you rambled some idle musings that might have impressed a weed-smoking teenager back in the day, but it doesn’t seem to have any sober application now, at least not as far as I can see. But then, what do I know about physics?

At one point, it seemed like you might have a hypothesis, but you didn’t mention how to test it nor falsify it. You’ll have to explain at least that much before it will qualify as such. Instead you simply assert the existence of protospace, and you assigned properties to it, even though there’s no reason to believe it has those properties, if it even exists at all.

I know you think you provided evidence for protospace, but try to understand that evidence and arguments are different things. The fact that a volume of space exists is not evidence of how it came to be. And the “logic of substantive causation” doesn’t mean anything, really, other than maybe the question-begging fallacy of a circular argument routing back to the assumed conclusion.

I looked up scholarly articles for “Dimensional Symmetry Fields Formations” but found nothing associated with “protospace”; which is apparently no more than the name of a Canadian company. It is a company of scientists, but they don’t appear to be studying anything you’re talking about; certainly not “a step-by-step fractal progression from Protospace to the formations composing DNA”. Can you link me any science articles explaining that? Because it sounds like you just made it up.

You didn’t put any scientific data into your email to me, and I’ve seen no reason yet to believe you have any idea what you’re talking about. Nor did you cite any fact that would actually qualify as evidence for your position.

And you still haven’t corrected your initial error in your first paragraph when you said that modern cosmogeny was all “imaginary notions without any actual facts”. You’ll have to accept that galactic red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation are Nobel prize-winning discoveries of actual facts that you’re going to have to admit and account for or explain better than cosmologists can. You can’t just pretend these things never existed.

You’re welcome to challenge either or both of those, and I’d be delighted to see it. I mean that sincerely! But again you have to have evidence to base it on and propose predictive hypotheses to back it up, and you haven’t shown me any of that yet.

"Let me give a short greentext summary.> Called out on the elementary mistake> Asks for ..."

A primer on scientific Theory
"TL;DR.BTW, I actually believed in evolution for 30 years, until mymid-forties. I’m now in my ..."

A primer on scientific Theory
"It's not something that I can explain in a short post. I could write an ..."

A primer on scientific Theory
"“Evolution does not predict that a population of creatures over time will turn into another ..."

A primer on scientific Theory

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment