The Infinite! In Search of the Ultimate Truth.

[tazanastazio]

Statement: These are my OWN theories. Some are right, some are wrong, for others it is still and always will be unknown or debatable. As time goes by, I'll be researching the subject and do the necessary "purging." This is not a scientific writing based on extensive research! This is the work of a PHILOSOPHER! I find it challenging to conceive an idea and form a theory, before I read about it somewhere or learn about it. To conceive an idea and put my name on it before someone else does, and form a theory that it would later ne proven true, that would be a bonus! There is risk to that as it is evident from some colorful responses I sometimes get from aficionados of science and virtuosos! But somehow like this, PHILOSOPHERS grasped with their imaginations GREAT IDEAS, upon which scientists built, and others learned! FEEL FREE TO CONTRIBUTE !


Part A

THE INFINITE! IN SEARCH OF THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.

"He contemplated the grandeur, and the presence of God; the eternity of the future, that strange mystery; the eternity of the past, a stranger mystery; all the infinities hidden deep in every direction; and, without trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, he saw it. He did not study God; he was dazzled by Him. He reflected upon the magnificent union of atoms, which give visible forms to Nature, revealing forces by recognizing them, creating individualities in unity, proportions in extension,the innumerable in the infinite, and through light producing beauty. These unions are forming and dissolving continually; from which come life and death." - Victor Hugo; Les Miserables.

The prevalent theory on Cosmology is the latest one by Stephen Hawking. According to this theory time started to count for our Universe ever since the Big Ban. The Universe is expanding as it is evident from the fact that no matter which direction we look from Earth, galaxies are getting further and further away. Depending how fast things move in a given part of space, its given time.

In my opinion regarding Hawking's theory of the Universe, time is still a matter of perception. It exists as far as measuring movement in that given space, in contrast to another movement in space; and also for measuring the effect/change to an object or existence, given the exposure to space/movement/conditions, and the particular time it took for said object or existence, to undergo said exposure to the given space/movement/ conditions. Still no actual, physical time exists; let alone the possibility for time-travel. Yet, gravity would affect the speed of light differently in a given space or universe compared to another space or universe; and the same goes for the the "fabric" of space.

According to Hawking the Universe is not static; it expands as it is evident from the aforementioned movement of galaxies seen from Earth. If the Universe was infinite and static, "every line of sight would end on the surface of a star and the sky would be illuminated even at night... unless the stars from far away had switched off ... still the absorbing (hypothetical) matter would eventually heat up and light up at some point..." Hawking also warned against other "pitfalls" of thinking about an infinite universe; there would be no center for the stars to fall on each other (true)...It is more correct to think of it from a finite perspective of a few (trillion) stars and add more stars afterwards." It is my speculation that there could be infinite centers of gravitational force; to which planets, stars and the galaxies they belong to are attracted, along with all matter within the gravitational range we designate with the term "universe." There may also be at some point counter gravity from neighboring such universes. There is also a "Big Bang" type of force which surpasses gravity in some cases like in our own Universe ... If rotating galaxies around a black hole, why not rotating Universes around a bigger gravitational center point?

Back to our own Universe; Can it expand forever, or would the Big Bang force eventually give in to gravitational forces between the galaxies, along with gravitational forces from other Universes. Newton in his 1st law did state : "an object in space..." But we are talking about space beyond the observable, and an Infinite beyond the imaginable. Can the universe really expand forever! What if it does eventually stop? Then time will stop for our Universe, and star gravity would prevail and our Universe will go back in time and space, and stars will collapse on each other to an Infinite dense singularity; or dense to a point that the compacting forces that would otherwise drive the singularity to even further compaction, would surpass the point of tolerance and an eruption, a new Big Bang will be caused. Then the cycle will be repeated INFINITELY, because there is No Beginning and No End to Eternity; and there is no other way for the Finite, but either a circle of events, or a Beginning and an End of a segment. What if the Galaxies do eventually approach the Galaxies of other universes and all collapse on each other creating other singularities?Wouldn't the energy that made light "travel" eventually be exhausted due to forces that even light itself is subjected to? Is there an end to questions, suppositions and theories?! Some of my own hypothesis and conjectures follow to reflect if not possibilities for our own universe, then perhaps other space within the Infinite.

If we were to make a distinction between the Universe and the Infinite, and we were to call the "Universe", the outcome of the Big Bang occurrence (for a better word than eruption/explosion) and the expansion that was caused by it, then; the actual (not the visible) universe may or may not have a center. Also, it may be of any shape depending on the opposing forces of the fabric within the Infinite; which fabric in my opinion is comprised of, as far as we can measure, infinite minute particles. The border of the Universe would then be the border between the force of the Big Bang occurrence, and the force of the fabric within the Infinite, which would withstand the force of the Big Bang occurrence.

There are infinite such universes forming and deforming within the Infinite. The formation of our own universe occured, as it is believed, due to the eruption of an infinitely massed singularity and the expansion of its erupted parts, which later evolved to what is now called the "Universe." The eruption of the singularity came to be known as the "Big Bang." If such occurence did take place causing the formation of our universe, wouldn't other such occurrences also take place and cause the formation of other universes within the Infinite?

At some point during the expansion of a universe, when the expanding force of the eruption of the singularity is overcomed by the gravitational force of the parts of the universe (planets, meteors, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.) the expansion ceases and a reversal commences. Unless the gravitational forces of the various parts of other Universes are in turn surpassed by the gravitational forces of the parts of other Universes. Or unless the parts of the universe are so far from each other that after the force of the expansion has been exhausted, no other force is affected on them. In the latter case, eventually all movement would diminish, all energy would be exhausted, and all existence, if any by that point, would cease. In the first case the reversal would continue till the parts of the Universe reach the point of tolerance during the so called Big Crunch. At some point during the Big Crunch, when the compacting forces surpass the point of compacting tolerance, a new singularity is formed which leads in turn to a new eruption (a new Big Bang occurrence). In the 2nd case the parts of the universe will be assimilated to other universes

If we where to contemplate what is between "1" and a second "1", which makes a "2", we would realize that what we thought of as a segment, is an infinity in itself. How about "π?" Let us use the scientific method. What is around us? The environment, molecules, protons neutrons etc. And beyond, as far as we can see, the horizon. And beyond, the stars! Now what's within the nucleus; within the protons and even the electrons? Other particles. And within them? Other particles comprising even what we imagine as the smallest of particles. How about beyond the universe? Following still the "scientific method", we have already recognized "patterns." Now we HAVE to extend them beyond the macrocosm and within the microcosm to Infinity! Why? Because according to math there is an Infinity between 1 and 2 (replicated pattern extending to Infinity). There is negative (-) infinity (infinite microcosm), and positive (+) Infinity (infinite macrocosm). Also considering the law of thermodynamics, we deduce that energy, because it cannot be created or destroyed, can neither be anything but INFINITE from EVERY perspective; microcosm, macrocosm, existence, magnitude etc., and yes so must be Matter and Intelligence. Reasonable step by step deduction we arrived to, due to recognizable patterns from our immediate environment, which following the example of units in math, we replicated infinitely!

Speaking of patterns and sometimes the analogies they may generate in our imagination, the movement of the sun and the planets, and in the case of Earth with us on it, brings to mind a roller coaster park; with its rolling carts on rails, spinning interconnected gears and repeated revolutions. The planets and the sun, without having a mind or kinetic energy of their own; follow an intermingling, spiral course; without bumping/crashing on each othe. The stars, the galaxies and everything in the universe; Everything in the Infinite moves. To move is to continue to exist. Our Sun with its planets, spinning as if balls going through invisible tubes which are comprised of particles of space-fabric, at vertiginous extreme speeds; immensely attracted to a source of gravitational pull, which in turn is also affected by gravity. As is everything within a spinning, like a gear, galaxy. A galaxy which follows too, never ending revolutions, like an incomprehensibly gigantic gear, in a yet more incomprehensible number of gears, inside an infinitely more incomprehensible number, of such spinning spheres. As if the Universe, and the Universes within the Infinite, were the intricate mechanism of interwoven gears, together with the particles of energy that power them, inside an infinitely large and therefore shapeless clock. Movement though does not happen to create time so the aforementioned, often incomprehensibly gigantic objects within the space and the Infinite, would count it. It is actually the other way around! Time is a universal concept, conceived to measure movement. Movement on the other hand is caused to create energy and therefore an outcome; which is existence, and the action and reaction results that come from it. Like a living being which needs to move for the blood in its veins to better circulate, and the synovial fluid in its joints to keep in good condition; like the interconnected metal gears of machinery need to keep moving to circulate grease and prevent the formation of rust; like a rolling rock which gathers no moss; so does everything within the Infinite move! Perhaps, the spiral motion of the planets as they revolve around the galaxy, pulled by a gravitational source, facilitates their revolutions around the galaxy reducing friction as they are going through the fabric of space. Still perhaps, from the friction generated as the planets roll through the fabric of space, energy/heat is produced, which sustains the temperatures in their nucleus; similar to electrons going thought resistance and heat being generated as a result. Gravity between the planets keeps their own revolutions to regulated periods around the few various fixed positions of their poles. Magnetic and electric fields are continuously generated on the planets as they move through the electromagnetic fields of space; similar to electrons going through rotating coils in a magnetic field and electricity being generated. Whenever there is an electric field, a magnetic field could be generated by a metal being exposed to it, setting the electrons in it in motion and therefore polarizing the metal. And whenever electrons are exposed to magnetic fields, they are set in motion and their motion in itself produces energy we call electricity. Planets have both metals and electrons abundant.

The Infinite has no shape nor size, no beginning nor end, no limits and no gaps. "Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite, as it encompasses every unit, every stage, every existence and every concept. When humanity refers to the idea of "God", what other concept should have such characteristics attributed to, by humanity, other than the Infinite? Any other traditional god/superior intelligence/existence/being/entity concept would have evolved from the Infinite and would be finite. Every form of existence; every intelligence, energy and matter, form/evolve from the Infinite and de-form/dissolve into the Infinite. Every existence has what humanity understands as a "role" and a "purpose." The ultimate purpose of intelligent existence is to acquire the knowledge required to bring about positivity in order to counterbalance negativity; both of which are emerging properties/outcomes of actions and reactions that bring forth existence, and to even strive when necessary to bring forth that balance if not a positive result, altogether. This is what existing is; this is what the purpose of life is; to acquire and pass on the knowledge which would enable existence, humanity on Earth, to serve its purpose towards the administration, improvement and amelioration of conditions; within our environment, within the Infinite. Knowledge is passed to the future generations. Knowledge and the right actions prove us able for further function within the Infinite, and to serve a further purpose within the Infinite, till we eventually dissolve/de-form back into it.

Negativity springs from selfishness which is the result of self-interest. Self-interest is necessary for every existence in order for it to exist. Because an intelligent existence recognizes the limits within its environment, and the limits of itself, due to self-interest, said existence may become selfish. Without self interest we would not care to exist, yet because we realize that we will only exist for a limited time, wanting to make the best of our existence, we become selfish and behave negatively to others. Negativity and positivity are the result of the interaction of the various forms of existence among themselves and with their environment, within the Infinite; an example is humans interacting with gravity. Without gravity we would not be able to stay on earth and survive, and because of gravity, when we fall we hurt ourselves and even die. That in turn creates further negativity to those who love us and care for us, due to ourselves been hurt; and in case of our death, the loss and the pain to those who care for us, which always comes with it.

Infinite minute particles; perhaps spherical (no other shape would provide for better combinations to form matter, and no other shape of matter would provide for better fluidity within the infinite than the spherical), bring about every action and reaction, and all phenomena within the Infinite; such as matter, energy and intelligence; along with gravity, light and sound.

If "nothing" did exist, if even infinitely minute space of nothing truly existed, there would be no Infinite; since there would be limits/borders within it. Which means that the only seemingly infinite, had beginnings and endings. Yet existence, or particles and objects forming everything within the Infinite cannot form/evolve out of nothing. Therefore, nothing cannot exist at all and definitely cannot extend beyond the Infinite, for the Infinite to exist, and for everything else to exist within the Infinite. Yet, if "nothing" does not exists, what then explains space for fluidity within the Infinite? Could there be an Infinite Nothing within an Infinite Everything, how could that be possible when the existence of the one, would nullify the existence of the other? Surely there always has to be something for something else to form from, and there always has to be something for something else to be de-formed ( destroyed, be disposed of) into.

The concept of "nothing" simply serves the purpose for humanity to describe the invisible and the non-existing from humanity's perspective. Nothing is not a necessity for fluidity within the Infinite, since simply put, infinite matter turns to infinite energy and vice versa. Even any conceptual nothing is included within the Infinite and fails infinitely in comparison. A (0) simply denotes the separation of any line between two points, a negative and a positive side; yet any such side of any such line can further be divided to infinity. A person may wonder how large or how small something can really get? Infinitely large and infinitely small, as far as humans could ever not just measure, but conceive! For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself. For an object to become infinitely large, it has to acquire all the energy and matter within the Infinite and become the Infinite Itself. A shape too is an object, since even a drawing on a piece of paper is drawn actually with three dimensional particles which comprise the surface of the paint/ink, on three dimensional particles which form the surface of the paper.

Distance does not exist for the Infinite because even if an object travels thousands of light years in space, from the perspective of the Infinite, at the same time it has not moved at all, it moved thousands of light years, and it is also moving infinitely. The infinite is ever reaching and ever extending from every perspective both outwards the macrocosm and inwards the microcosm. The Infinite is within every matter, energy and intelligence, and every matter, energy and intelligence is formed from within the Infinite and de-formed into the Infinite. There are no absolute sizes within the infinite, nothing is absolutely large or absolutely small. An absolute zero temperature for example denotes a situation in which all movement ceases. Yet movement never ceases absolutely and completely; As far as we can perceive, it decelerates and accelerates infinitely within the infinite microcosm and macrocosm. The movement of infinitely smaller particles would generate infinitely lower temperatures as far as we could measure, and a cluster of infinite number of stars, would generate immeasurable levels of temperature; additionally temperature is never static.

Time does not exist for the infinite, and neither does it exist for the finite in actuality, beyond the concept of the latters beginning and end. Time is simply a measurement of movement in reference to other movement or change. Change happens due to the interaction of particles or objects and its rate and effect depend on the cause and influencing factors and the object undergoing it. Change is relative to circumstance, and its effect (positive or negative, quick or slow) is a matter of perception of a hypothetical observer and the object going through said change. What we think of as time, passes quickly when we are busy, absorbed in thought, are entertained; yet seems to stall in traffic, when we are bored, working through a drudging task etc.

Infinite universes and clusters of infinite universes are formed and deformed infinitely with infinite possibilities. Nothing could possibly be flat in the infinite; everything within the Infinite is made of particles (quite possibly spherical in shape for fluidity of movement and formation) with smaller particles forming between the spaces the larger particles form; and the larger particles as well, are formed by smaller ones. If an object becomes small enough, it will find itself in a three dimensional space. Therefore there is no such thing as a two dimensional space, and since physical time does not actually exist, there is no such thing as a forth dimension and consequently any more dimensions; additionally after realizing that there are no such things as the so called "parallel universes."

The only way that dimensional time could exist, in order for time-travel to be possible, would be if we would consider infinite possible futures within infinite EXACTLY THE SAME UNIVERSES. These universes would have to have infinite minute differences to cover the changes occurring by the different course of action an individual existence would have taken and the infinitely spanning effect of those actions to other existences and circumstances. Ourselves and everything within the Infinite, would be affected in turn, by such infinite circumstances and by the effect of such infinite existences to an infinite minute level even, as we are presently affected unbeknownst to ourselves and the people of our environment, the infinite possibilities of which, it would have taken an infinity of replicated infinities to cover. That would be the only way to have dimensional time, with dimensional past and present, and a dimensional future (one out of the infinite available PER INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE within an infinite number of universes); through which infinite futures, unbeknownst to ourselves and the people of our environment, we were passing to (from one in a given infinite fraction of a moment, to another one out of the infinite alternatives). Which one preexisting/predetermined future would be chosen out of the infinite choices would depend to minute details, infinite minute effects even, within the course of our daily life. Such exact replica universes are an impossibility because such a phenomenon would also imply replicated infinities, with only infinitely minute differences. What would the point of such infinite futures be, if that was even a possibility, other than to satisfy the fans of sci-fi fiction? And while there indeed exist infinite infinities within the Infinite; THE INFINITE IN ITSELF IS NOT REPLICATED!

Not to beat a dead horse, but to suppose that in the vastness of the Infinite where everything is possible, an exact replica of our own universe existed, we would have to assume that in that universe every chain reaction from its beginning to the given point of comparison to our own, was exactly the same for every factor; even if seemingly insignificant, which factor would otherwise bring forth a difference between the two universes. But each of the two universes would have also been affected by infinite chains of actions and reactions, which would have led to the formation of said two universes; which chains of actions and reactions, would also have to be exactly the same in order for the two universes to be exactly the same replica of each other, and so on. Continuing that process of reasoning we would deduce that to have an exact replica universe we would have to have such a phenomenon of exact replication which would have to reach an INFINITE degree. As it has already been stated though, such exact replica universes are an impossibility because such a phenomenon would also imply replicated infinities, with only infinitely minute differences. Therefore two exactly the same universes where a person could find the exact replica of himself, and travel in that universe's time frame, are an impossibility. Even if we allow for the concept of exact replicated infinities in order to consider the possibilities of this version of time-travel, said person would have to be able to find the exact replicas of his planet within the exact replicas of his universe, among the infinite choices within the infinite, and travel to the exact point in time of his choice, since the formation of said universe, in order to travel from that point in time of that universe, to a specific time in the past or the future, in another universe, which would correspond to the past or the future of his own original. That would be the only way to travel in time and as already stated, this version of time-travel is also non-existent; simply because there cannot be replicated infinities; let alone for every individual existence, travelling around between replicated universes, causing chain/action-reaction changes of the future, even if infinitely minute.

Not to walk back a mile and further beat the aforementioned dead horse, but to further account for the fallacy of the time travel notion, consider this: Even if we suppose for the sake of the argument that time-travel was possible, in order to travel to the past by means of actual linear time travel, and not by transcending to another parallel universe, a person would have to have the means to roll back all the chains of actions and reactions that lead to his/her present point in time. Such a regression would in turn change the person's environment, world and Universe to an infinite perhaps effect; which as a result would bring infinite changed actions and reactions in the future; which would in turn bring change of infinite proportions. The result of said person's cells regressing would have a chain of actions and reactions to particles forming the subatomic particles that comprise them. Every action and every act, such as metabolic and other bodily functions would have to be regressed! For said person to travel to the future, if supposedly there is such thing as dimensional time, he or she would have to choose from infinite choices as mentioned earlier, since linear travel could not be possible for a future not yet formed in the given universe; and how then could a future be already formed in others? Could he/she have possibly traveled beyond their time of death in a given parallel universe while being dead in others? If said person had traveled in the past before the time of their birth, said person would have not yet been born in this other parallel reality. Could they find themselves in the new emerging present, after in that new present the other self had been born, and both individuals live in that same reality? That would mean parallel realities/universes merging! Even if we assume that while we cannot travel in the future since it does not yet exist and that we can only travel in the past, if that was possible, it would mean to retract/erase an already existing future; or that said future would continue to exist in some other parallel reality. Such parallel realities exist only in our minds, but they could provide interesting themes for sci-fi stories.

If such a one predetermined/preexisting future existed for an existence, then there would be no point for that existence, or its purpose would be limited (animals in a farm). If the future of our world was predetermined, then humanity could not be held accountable for its actions. There would be no point for existence, since there would be no living, experiencing, and learning from it. The future of every existence within the infinite could not be predetermined, if that was the case the infinite would be limited, with other words there would be no infinite since every existence in it would be like limitedly functioning machinery. If there was no Infinite, there woulb not be anything else either.Finally, if we believed that our future was predetermined/preexisting, then while we would and should still confine and punish criminals and the tyrants of history, could we still also hold them ethically accountable. The same argument could be made of course for the criminals' and tyrants' mental status, genetic make up and conditions of upbringing. Is there a very fine line between mental status, conditions of upbringing and affecting it, and evil nature; when it comes to litigation deciding the fate of an individual?

If we were to accept the existence of a physical time; a so called 4th dimension, we would have to imagine an infinitely branching future, from an infinitely minute present, the way to which present, infinite routes from the past lead (or in a case of the tree of time infinite roots leading to a non-discernible trunk/present, then branching infinitely); certainly by the time an infinite fraction of an attosecond passes we find ourselves in a new present, the future; and that only for infinite fractions of an attosecond. Additionally every present in itself could have infinite alternatives. Infinite holographic versions of ourselves, ready to be filled in, based on a minute fraction of a choice that would decide the course of things among the alternative; acting and reacting with infinite holographic versions of others, who also act and react with each other and the forces within their environment. Surely we can predict a change in the future based on our ability to bring about such a change, but to hint on predetermined outcomes based on a theory of physical time, a 4th dimension, it is preposterous! It does not fall far from claiming that people could be told their future by knowing forces summoned; that we are simply hamsters in a maze for the entertainment of others. That there is no actual free will, but we are locked in choosing our few alternatives, or no free will at all, because the alternative we think we choose is already pre-determined. That the Infinite in Itself, is actually a finite limitedly functioning machinery; not the case, because as aforementioned, had it been the case, it would have to have an origin and an end and would not be Infinite. For a scientist to suggest, or imply, let alone insist, that the future already exists, that everything is predetermined and therefore no reason for anyone to work towards anything since the outcome has already taken place in the future, or some version of a predetermined future; not only is not acceptable, is nonsensical. At least with astrology there is always the explanation that "forces/spirits" would make things take place as foretold, to lure you in the occult. Some of this time travel multidimensional notions do not seem to be further from science fiction, pseudoscience and even occultism.

The idea of time travel sprang from the notion that time would slow down when travelling at the speed of light, and even regress when travelling faster. This theory could never be validated because such speeds are impossible to reach. Furthermore a craft travelling at such speeds would have to follow a means of navigation other than light since the image of objects in the immediate front of the craft, would reach the craft at double the speed of light (both light and craft traveling at the same speed) and objects perpendicular to the sides and back of the craft would be invisible (craft is always ahead of the image generated) . The pilots would not be able to react at such speed, since what would be visible to them would be a mixed stream of color and light jetting on them from their front sides and through the immediate front, because both them and the light travel at the same speed (for one it would seem to them that they would crash on objects earlier than they actually would; also, for the sake of the point, we suppose that they survived the trip, and we also exclude friction that would generate an enormous amount of heat and turn the craft alight, before it reached a fraction of the light-speed; also we neglect the relativity concept which states that the mass of the aircraft would reach infinite levels and therefore would encompass the Infinite in whole. Since objects travelling at the speed of light are impossible to observe, since their original position would be visible after they had already been gone, experiments with them are impossible to be conducted even in our imagination. Without even a reasonable deduction based on logical steps we could consider other possibilities and even doubt the existence of dimensional time, a road onto which one can travel back and forth. Additionally, the detrimental effect to the objects travelling at the speed of light, would give false perception in regards to their shape, and deem such imagined experiments non-conductible even in our imagination. An experiment that cannot be conducted even in our imagination, has no grounds and its theoretical outcomes are invalid, non existing or at least questionable. Simply put, just because we can not accelerate mass to light-speed, to prove that it would become infinite, does not mean that we have to accept the outcome as true! Yet a logical explanation could prove it false, if the counterargument sounds less reasonable and cannot be experimentally proven.

Certainly the infinite in number and size particles that comprise the fabric of the Universe, are affected by gravitational forces. It may take more or less seconds or years for a being or a thing to deteriorate when exposed to gravitational or other influence within a portion of space or environment as opposed to another. If the fabric of a section of space was to be stretched, shrunk or dilated by gravitational forces, then it may take more or less hours, days, months or years for a spaceship (which is also affected by gravity) to make the destination. The clocks in the spaceship may break or skip a few bits due to mechanical reasons, since they too are affected by gravity; they may go faster or slower as our hearts would, because they too are physical object, they are machines. We may have thought that we have traveled through time, but we would not have actually done so, since time as a venue does not exist (unless gravity messed up with our cognitive abilities, or a sinister intelligence convinced us that we did). Certainly the mechanism of clocks or watches on mount Everest, may be affected less by gravity making them move slightly ever more freely, as opposed to clocks or watches at sea level who would loose a few seconds as the Earth, and the rest of the planets move around the sun, and all move around the galaxy. But that does not mean that time exists! Gravity and its mechanical and biological effect only exist! Sure people on mount Everest may live longer, and stay younger longer! Less affect by gravity, less stress and cleaner air, better food and purer water; not to mention the tend more towards natural medicine, unless they have appendicitis. Gravity affects everything within the Infinite, even our digestive system (body inversion is good for your bowels, circulation and your spinal disks - consult your physician though prior to attempting any difficult gymnastics, depending on your physical condition). Also, taking into consideration unknown electromagnetic or other mechanical affects; the clock on the dashboard of my automobile always gains up to 10 minutes with the passing of time and I usually readjust it around Daylight Saving Time change. On a couple of occasions the service person where I take my car for service, took it upon herself/himself to do it. Perhaps it is a general issue that they had been looking on. The point I am making is that watches and clocks are not a reliable telltale sign that time exists! They are simply human made tools to measure the Sunrise-Sunset-Sunrise period, WE humans have established. As with EVERYTHING within the Infinite, clocks and watches too are affected by gravity. If you doubt this statement, stick your watch/clock out of the window and let go; see if it floats (you can try the same experiment in your bathtub (after filling it with water). Einstein, and those who sold books and made movies based on his "time-travel" theories tapped on humanity's characteristic of remorse and regret. Who would not want to go back in time and change things after they had acquired precious knowledge? Surely it would be nice if we could live long enough and be young enough to live, learn and live better in our longer futures.

Though at times referring to infinite levels and values, Einstein sometimes seems to not fully consider concepts from the perspective of the infinite and infinity; neither does he apply the idea of the infinite and infinity to EVERY concept. Einstein came up with an equation which while scientists believe it holds its ground to things we can actually perceive and observe (or we think we do) it does not perhaps apply to the reality of the Infinite! If the maximum heat we can theoretically get would be produced by running an almost infinitely large object by the speed of the fastest thing we are able to observe (light), then that would be the maximum temperature (Energy) theoretically achievable; which would be a finite amount and not infinite, since it is depended upon a finite value, the constant speed of light! Which leads to the paradox that the whole amount of energy within the Infinite, is a finite unit! What is the paradox with this, is that it contradicts the law of thermodynamics dictating that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If something is finite IT HAS TO BE CREATED AND BE ABLE TO BE DESTROYED, otherwise IT CAN BE NOTHING BUT INFINITE!

If we consider an object approaching a wall, would it eventually reach or NEVER reach the wall? How about BOTH at the SAME time! When we consider things from the perspective of an object of finite size, sure it will eventually reach the wall... that "0" point or in Einstein's terms the fastest speed possibly observable, the speed of light (before time and space get SUPPOSEDLY all jumbled up, relativity etc. ), but wait... What if the object becomes small enough to pass between the particles that comprise the wall? Now consider this, what if as it passes it continues to become ever so small, INFINITELY small; at what point does it exactly pass through, or even reach the wall? NEVER!

If an object traveled with the speed of light its original position would not be invisible; meaning we would see the object in its original position after the object had been gone already, because it would take the same speed for light to reach it, and therefore light would not reach it in time. Therefore Einstein's relativity examples would not hold (the objects that seem to collide to the perception of one observer while they overpass each other according to the perception of another observer). Also if the speed of light cannot be achieved, especially when considering what would happen to the mass ( spacecraft ) accelerating hypothetically towards even a fraction of the speed of light, maybe the mentioning of time-travel would be more appropriate for the science fiction books. The fascination around time-travel, is good for sales.

We could save significant time, resources and distance traveled in space, if we had invented computer systems that would adjust the trajectory of light between light-year distances, to account for the effect of gravity on it, and produce the linear range between two points in space. As light is bent by gravitational forces and is reflected upon objects, we follow a longer route when we follow the course of light. Since we will never be able to travel light-speed, we will never be able to visit inhabited planets further into the galaxy and will never be visited by organic species from the depths of the galaxy, because these are impossible distances to traverse otherwise. Light-speed travelers would need to be able to perceive what is in front of them in time to avoid collisions. Given that they would be travelling in the same speed as light does, the rays of their spaceship's radars will be travelling towards their destination with the same speed. They would not be able to tell what lies ahead, in order to be able to react in time, to avoid colliding with objects appearing in front of them, even with the use of navigating systems operated by powerful computers. Even if they did manage to travel light-speed and did so only in "empty" space; as mentioned earlier, their spacecraft would be alight and destroyed to ash and dust due to friction alone, before they reached fractions of light speed. Do I need to get into the type of steering and break system they would need? And no, time would not be affected (since it does not actually exist) and the travelers would not travel in it. Neither the effect to their brains bouncing in their skulls, or to their other organs, would be any less detrimental because they travel light speed; nor would their blood and other body vessels fare any better, or their cells and the very molecules that comprise them. Because part of the problem is not just accelerating to light speed, making it through the friction and navigating among giant objects in space; it is also slowing down in time to avoid collision, and the whiplash and the other aforementioned effects to a living organism (not even any insects on board would perhaps make the trip). So no living breathing species could have ever possibly reached, or will ever possibly reach Earth; unless they were or will be able to navigate by other means than following the path of light (shortcuts of the universe), or they come from stars in close proximity, or unless they are other forms of energy + intelligence + matter combination. For one they shouldn't have to breath, drink, eat and move their bowels; no time to sleep from all that bouncing, the noise, and the heat from all that friction ( For comparison: Boeing 737 take off speed: 70 m/sec * Maximum allowed Boeing 737 cruise speed at 27,000: 252 m/sec * Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird max speed: 980 m/sec * automobile at 70 mph: 31 m/sec * Light Speed: 299,792,458 m/sec).

Consider a rotating flying disk such as a Frisbee. As it's edge rotates, it cuts through the air, setting aside any resisting forces; similar to the way a circular saw cuts through a surface. Consider also that a nuclear submarine could have enough fuel to last up to 30 years. If we were to build a disk shaped, nuclear powered spacecraft, the perimeter of which would rotate in flight, we would reach much higher speeds. Furthermore, being that its rockets would be positioned underneath the Flying Disk (saucer if it involves an accompanying cup), and due to its round shape, such a craft would be more versatile in turning on its longitudinal axis. It could suspend itself immobile and ascend at various angles along its vertical axis, and it could change course at any angle on its lateral axis (by control of its rockets underneath). Taking in account that according to relativity our mass would increase when traveling at fractions of light speed and the aforementioned effect of friction, the spacecraft would have to be built by materials which would withstand the conditions. At 1/4 the speed of light we could reach the closest stars, the Alpha Century tri-star system, in 16 years. From there and many years into the future, after establishing a colony, we could explore and conquer a small part of our yet newest frontier. Due to gravity and other conditions affecting our aging less, while traveling at fractions of light-speed, we may stay younger longer. Again, according to relativity, our mass would increase with the corresponding outcomes to our body, together with the results of the other conditions mentioned earlier, to every living organism on board. Time, being that it doesn't actually exist, would bear relevance only to our schedules.

Currents of particles are also the cause of movement of objects in space, and the cause of whirlpools (wormholes). As objects are formed and occupy space, they cause currents, like a falling pebble in a pond causes ripples on the surface of the water. Gravity also pulls space forming particles, pulling as a consequence said space, and bend light, the only means of navigation in space (following the bowed trajectory of light as opposed to following the straight line which would connect the edges of the hypothetical bow between two points of the bowed trajectory of light, which is called the range).

According to Einstein's postulate ,"The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source." Could that be because the energy for the speed of light is not actually generated by the light source, that is why light does not accelerate (neither does sound)? Could that be because light does not travel on its own, but it is instead passed on by particles, from particle to particle (present even in what we consider as empty space) at the original speed, which we interpret as a wave (due perhaps to their wavy motion)? Whereas with sound, vibrating surfaces vibrate in turn particles and set them also in a wave motion? Ex. (Young and Freedman, University Physics 13 Edition, pgs 1224-1225) If a spacecraft travels at speed of 1000m/s and fires a missile straight ahead at 2000m/s, according to Newtonian mechanics, the missile's speed relative to the spacecraft would be 3000m/s. Suppose that the spacecraft turns on a searchlight, pointing to the same direction the missile was fired, the speed of light according to Einstein's postulate will not replicate the behavior of the rocket's and will not be 1000 + C, it would still be C. Why does light defy common sense, or does it? When the spacecraft which travels at 1000m/s, turns on the searchlight, the particles instantaneously start passing on the generated photons at standard speed c, independent of whether the spacraft accelerates or decelerates; after all, any speed of the spacecraft would be insignificant to the speed of light at c = 299,792,458 m/s. Now suppose the spacecraft accelerates to a speed close to c (model experiment excluding other factors, spacecraft distruction, relativity etc.), and it turns on its thick laser beams, would the pilots at some point approach close enough to see the end of the laser beams? In Einstein's type of mental experiments the original positions of an object moving light-speed would be invisible. Despite the fact that according to MIT experiments the human eye can discern moving pictures changing as fast as 13 milliseconds/0.013 sec, at that time a craft traveling with the speed of light, would have traversed 3,897,302 meters. Also light from any source would reach the craft too late to reflect back the craft's original position, since the craft would be one step ahead of the light. What an observer would see with delay would be the next position the craft is, since the craft would meet with the photons approaching that position, already, simultaneously with the craft.

Imagine if light didn't truly travel on its own as believed! Imagine if it was rather a ripple particle reaction our brains understand as "light"; like water waves having a ripple reaction the impact of which we feel or see on objects. There is movement of water, but it is not the first molecules in line which reach us, but the last ones . When light (or sound) occurs (electron jump in the case of light - explosion or vibration of a surface which sets in motion sound waves in the case of sound), in most cases it can be observed from every direction (unless there is an obstacle blocking their way). Could that mean that light doesn't actually travel? Could it be that the electron jumps which generate photons, cause a ripple effect from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as " light?" Maybe the size of particles determines the size of what we understand as the wavelengths. It would be like if people would stand in line in every direction and in the middle there was a fire. The people around the fire, fire up a torch simultaneously and almost instantaneously pass the torch to the next person. It is not the first people that lighted up the torch who ran with it and lightened up an area a few miles or light years away, but the last person/particle at the end of the line! Maybe the passing along of the photon (the torch), is what causes the wavy motion. Perhaps this is why during the "Double Slit Experiment" light behaves both as a wave and a particle; whereas in the case of sound we have just the vibration of particles and nothing gets passed on; therefore we observe only waves and no particles occupying the second surface of the experiment after they go through the first one, the one with the two slits. Also it seems that photons occupy first areas on the surface that had not been recently occupied; areas without light energy or not enough light energy remaining in them. When it comes to colored surfaces, it could be that after the molecules of a colored surface absorb the energy level corresponding to a particular color, reducing the energy level of light, the light is then passed on; only to the particles the size/type of which, corresponds to what we understand as the wavelength of the particular color in the spectrum. In a prism, after the passing of the light is delayed by the molecules of the prism, each of its energy levels is split and passed on to the particular particles corresponding to the frequency of the various colors in the spectrum. How long it would take from the particle jumps that occurred to create the photons (or rather the ripple/passing of the photon effect) to the effect that those particle jumps (creation of photons) would have on our brains, times the distance between our eyes and the particle jumps, we could be interpreting as light-speed. This hypothesis could explain why it takes light speed for a photon to have its effect on our brains and while though it can be observed it has no mass let alone acquiring infinite mass. This could also explain how it is that light having no mass is affected by gravitational forces, is pulled by a black hole (not the photons themselves but the particles of space involved in the light ripple/passing on of the photon effect).

As scientists believe, photons are travelling at light speed. As scientists also claim, photons have no mass, they don't acquire infinite mass as they "travel" light speed, as relativity suggests for particles or objects travelling at the speed of light! Light travels in all directions blocked only by obstacles. Considering a single direction, traveling for 13 Billion years (oldest light observable) would take a lot of energy lost. Where has light acquired all that energy from? Additionally the effect of particles interacting with each other, would explain the lack of need of "Ether" for light or sound to travel as earlier physics theorist assumed, and the presence of so called "electromagnetic fields"; areas within which particles would interact electromagnetically.

If light did not actually travel on its own, but was instead past on from paricle to particle; we would have the TIME it took for the effect, but no SPACE (no travel). Take light, as we think we know it, out of the equation, and the MAGICAL/ALLURING idea of relativity is falling apart ! Why do we give so much weight to light? Sure without light we would not be able to observe anything. Yet isn't every observable phenomenon in the universe depended upon gravity and the bonding forces of matter? Isn't movement by objects and planets in space the result of gravity, and movement by living species and machines a result of action opposing gravity? Isn't the movement of electron from a higher level of energy to a lower that produces light? Isn't energy, in the form of light required for an electron to jump from a lower to higher level of energy. And when the electron moves to the particular energy level doesn't it adjust its wavelength to the wavelength of the orbit it moved to? Aren't the various bonding forces involved in these movements, energy gaining or releasing and the necessity for wavelength adjustments? Finally isn't the continues breaking and remaking of bonds of atoms/molecules that releases heat (energy)? Every phenomenon in the universe, such as energy, is the result of gravity and the bonding forces of matter. Isn't it perhaps gravity as aforementioned that causes infinite universes to compact to infinite singularities, or to a point of tolerance beyond which new Big Bangs would occur, repeating the cycle between singularities and "Big Bangs" infinitely?

"Imagination is..." NOT "...better than knowledge". Imagination is the means to collect the "ore" ( conceive the idea), yet REASON, LOGICAL DEDUCTION, and yes scientific experimentation are the means to distill the "GOLD", which is knowledge.

The aforementioned considerations would lead to the seven fundamental principles of the Infinite from which most concepts could be explained:

1) There is no such thing as absolute size, absolute number; absolute large or absolute small. There is no such thing as absolute void, absolute void is unattainable.

2) Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it is formed from matter and it forms matter, and it takes intelligence to do so. The Infinite is the Infinite Intelligence, Energy and Matter.

3) Where there is an action there is always a reaction. Everything within the Infinite is the result of the cause and effect phenomenon. The Infinite is the reason for all matter, objects and phenomena, and the source of all energy, intelligence and existence.

4) Time does not exist. Time is simply a concept, a means to measure movement in reference to other movement; how many turns a planet made around a star, while that star was rotating once around its galaxy.

5) If an object becomes small enough it will find itself in a "THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACE". Since physical/dimensional time does not exist, a fourth dimension does not exist either. There are no more dimensions than three and depending on the size of the protractor we are imagining, whether finite or non, the analogous number of directions.

6) Math is dimensional, because our mathematical calculations depend on what amount we assign to a UNIT (stage). Math is the assigned amount of a unit (1), its absence (0) and the Infinite (never absolute unit or absolute absence of it). The Infinite could be symbolized mathematically by a circle (inclusion) with a plus in it; to denote that the Infinite inludes everything (unit denoted by the perpendicular bar of the (+) sing), nothing (denoted by the 0 ofthe circle), and the (+) and (-) signs to denote Negative and Positive (and the aforementioned emerging effects of negativity and positivity to existence).

7) Gravity affects everything within the Infinite.

"Nothing", "Everything", "Time", "Space", "Distance", "Dimensions, "Beginning", "End", "Energy", "Mass", "Intelligence", "Objects", "Particles" are simply concepts conceived to describe what we THINK we see and understand within the INFINITE.

Matter would not move without energy and energy could not be directed without intelligence; the Infinite Intelligence Energy and Matter. To no other concept except the Infinite could be attributed, some of the characteristics humanity has attributed to the idea of "God."

Part B posted as a reply below due to lack of space.

[Dontaskme]

Thank-you so very much for this most enjoyable read, what an amazingly well written fascinating essay, well thought out tazanastazio.

How nice of you to drop this in for us all to read. I loved it. Hope you and your talent for writing will stick around.

I love to see this kind of expression here.
Haven't seen this kind of quality since the days of the character ''Your Construct'' who left the forum sadly.

Thanks again.


PS..I love reading and discussing things about the infinite. I do hope you will stay and not just be one of those usual passing ships in the night sort of thing.

[tazanastazio]

Thank you Dontaskme for taking the time to post your kind, generous and encouraging message.

If I think of something else, or stumble on anything that is worthy to mention in this forum, or this thread, I'll do so; hopefully it would also be seen as worthy of being posted. I'll also visit other threads - there is a plethora of ideas in this forum - and put in my two bits/penny worth.

Meantime I wish you all the best. Take care.

[surreptitious57]

I also think the infinite exists because absolute nothing cannot be sustained and so there must always
be something regardless of anything else - I think the infinite extends to both the past and the future

[Age]

Why is 'The Infinite' called a theory/philosophy?

There is, obviously, no spatial nor temporal boundaries, any/where.

There is, however, an infinite NOW/HERE.

There is nothing that could be refuted/disputed regarding this.

[Dontaskme]

Why is 'The Infinite' called a theory/philosophy?

Because that which can be spoken about - the(known) is a fictional theory only, aka a represention, a mirror image, a mirage. The imagined narrative of the unwritten. The I AM that is known knows nothing. The I AM is the knowing that cannot be known.

There is, obviously, no spatial nor temporal boundaries, any/where.

You'd have to be temporally fragmented to know of that which is boundlessly infinite...aka a ''thing'' KNOWN...by ''no thing''

There is, however, an infinite NOW/HERE.

Only known in relationship to itself by association...in this / it's conception.

There is nothing that could be refuted/disputed regarding this.

Every 'thing' can be negated or refuted except ''things'' Source.

.

[Skepdick]

Every 'thing' can be negated or refuted except ''things'' Source.

Can the negative be negated?

The apophatic approach addresses that with via negativa.

The similarity to modern-day science and falsifiability should be striking.

[Dontaskme]

Every 'thing' can be negated or refuted except ''things'' Source.

Can the negative be negated?

The apophatic approach addresses that with via negativa.

It should strike you as very odd that the ancients used the same technique that we call 'science' to day to reason about their Gods...

Your post is conceptual knowledge...known only now...not in some past or future..past and future can only be known now.

Now being another label for infinity, or source. Infinity is always parallel to itself for there is no other source than infinite source.

There is no technique to approach the NOW .. Now is without doubt or error. There is no 'thing' making now happen, nor is there any 'thing' not making it happen. Now is / not happening.

All known concepts are the result of thought, concepts can be negated, but the source of all thought cannot.

Thoughts are self-arising...appearing in no-self. Known to no one.

Even the odd is even in parrellel to it's own source.

.

[Skepdick]

Your post is conceptual knowledge...

Is there any other kind?

Now being another label for infinity, or source. Infinity is always parallel to itself for there is no other source than infinite source.
There is no technique to approach the NOW .. Now is without doubt or error

'Now', 'Infinity', 'knowledge', 'present', 'future', 'labels'.

All of those things strike me as concepts.

[Dontaskme]

Every 'thing' can be negated or refuted except ''things'' Source.

Can the negative be negated?

The apophatic approach addresses that with via negativa.

It should strike you as very odd that the ancients used the same technique that we call 'science' to day to reason about their Gods...

Your post is conceptual knowledge...known only now...not in some past or future..past and future can only be known now.

Now being another label for infinity, or source. Infinity is always parallel to itself for there is no other source than infinite source.

There is no technique to approach the NOW .. Now is without doubt or error. There is no 'thing' making now happen, nor is there any 'thing' not making it happen. Now is / not happening.

All known concepts are the result of thought, concepts can be negated, but the source of all thought cannot.

Thoughts are self-arising...appearing in no-self. Known to no one.

Even the odd is even in parallel to it's own source.

.

[Dontaskme]

'Now', 'Infinity', 'knowledge', 'present', 'future', 'labels'.

All of those things strike me as concepts.

So what?

There is here only ''known concepts'', known by no concept, each concept is an image/character of it's imageless source, a mirror image of itself, a representation of this infinite presentation manifesting all at once, when one thing is known everything is known by association to no thing...every thing is a finite impression, an imprint of the infinite imprinting upon itself infinitley for eternity. As this immediate self-sustaining self-perpetuating infinite feedback loop. I AM the blank canvas upon which I paint my dreams.

Infinity the ONE of the many. Many of the ONE

.

[Age]

Why is 'The Infinite' called a theory/philosophy?

Because that which can be spoken about - the(known) is a fictional theory only, aka a represention, a mirror image, a mirage. The imagined narrative of the unwritten. The I AM that is known knows nothing. The I AM is the knowing that cannot be known.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here, and unfortunately I also do not know what question I could
now ask you that would help you to clearly clarify, to me, what it is that you are trying to express.

There is, obviously, no spatial nor temporal boundaries, any/where.

You'd have to be temporally fragmented to know of that which is boundlessly infinite...aka a ''thing'' KNOWN...by ''no thing''

There is, however, an infinite NOW/HERE.

Only known in relationship to itself by association...in this / it's conception.

There is nothing that could be refuted/disputed regarding this.

Every 'thing' can be negated or refuted except ''things'' Source.

.

Thank you for showing me the error in my writing. I forgot to add the word 'successfully'.

There is nothing that could be successfully refuted/disputed regarding what I said here. That is, of course, unless I am shown to be wrong.

[Dontaskme]

Thank you for showing me the error in my writing. I forgot to add the word 'successfully'.

There is nothing that could be successfully refuted/disputed regarding what I said here. That is, of course, unless I am shown to be wrong.

There is no error in your writing, for what appears as your writing is a unique appearance of the unwritten. Nothing apparently written is right or wrong, because it's just a fiction anyway..it's just what's appearing here now as a finite expression of infinity itself expressing itself as and through a known concept conceived.

Concepts are KNOWN but not by the concept known...In knowing I know nothing...everything is known...from source to source an endless spring.

You are infinite knowing as and when that knowing arises in you...for all things are possible where there is an infinite source..which can only be you.

What comes from you can only be from you, there is no other source of you but you...so nothing to refute you. You cannot refute yourself without creating yourself in the same instant.

.

[Age]

Thank you for showing me the error in my writing. I forgot to add the word 'successfully'.

There is nothing that could be successfully refuted/disputed regarding what I said here. That is, of course, unless I am shown to be wrong.

There is no error in your writing, for what appears as your writing is a unique appearance of the unwritten. Nothing apparently written is right or wrong, because it's just a fiction anyway..it's just what's appearing here now as a finite expression of infinity itself expressing itself as and through a known concept conceived.

Concepts are KNOWN but not by the concept known...In knowing I know nothing...everything is known...from source to source an endless spring.

You are infinite knowing as and when that knowing arises in you...for all things are possible where there is an infinite source..which can only be you.

What comes from you can only be from you, there is no other source of you but you...so nothing to refute you. You cannot refute yourself without creating yourself in the same instant.

.

To me, the word 'you' infers an "other". So, to me, each time the you' word is used a concept of separatedness appears.

To me, there is a much more useful word, which infers Oneness, without separation.

[Dontaskme]

Thank you for showing me the error in my writing. I forgot to add the word 'successfully'.

There is nothing that could be successfully refuted/disputed regarding what I said here. That is, of course, unless I am shown to be wrong.

There is no error in your writing, for what appears as your writing is a unique appearance of the unwritten. Nothing apparently written is right or wrong, because it's just a fiction anyway..it's just what's appearing here now as a finite expression of infinity itself expressing itself as and through a known concept conceived.

Concepts are KNOWN but not by the concept known...In knowing I know nothing...everything is known...from source to source an endless spring.

You are infinite knowing as and when that knowing arises in you...for all things are possible where there is an infinite source..which can only be you.

What comes from you can only be from you, there is no other source of you but you...so nothing to refute you. You cannot refute yourself without creating yourself in the same instant.

.

To me, the word 'you' infers an "other". So, to me, each time the you' word is used a concept of separatedness appears.

To me, there is a much more useful word, which infers Oneness, without separation.

Then the use of that much more useful word would be the solution to this apparent problem.
Assuming it is a problem for me?

.