Kevin's Watch

So yeah, the last few years have been weird. I ended up doing a huge dive into astronomy and physics. Trying to work things out for myself, I think I discovered something. I'd try to be humble about it, but the closest I can get is saying it probably sounds insane.

Here's the book, The Infinity of Scale, but I'll put up the whole thing (the theory/hypothesis is about 14 pages. The rest of it is me just padding it with a lot of probably unfounded thanks and acknowledgments) in the Writer's Hall if anyone wants to read it.

The writing and editing needs a lot of improvement, but since I felt like I was going insane and just had to publish it and worry about the rest later (very well. I contradict myself).

Well, based on the first couple pages, I can't say I'll get through it. We'll see what happens.

LOL, crazy. I can't make heads or tails of it. Also, I thought you'd posted it in the hall, so I worried I was going mad when I couldn't find it or my comment about it. Congrats.

--A

Sorry, I just pasted the docx file to the page and hit submit. And it should be free for anyone with KU, so if people wanted to give me some free page reads...

I guess I need to expand it out? I thought each sentence clearly followed the next. I know it's weird, but it should also make sense. The underlying premise is pretty straightforward, though. As part of the universal causal framework, space (or what we call "spacetime") needs to be considered in our calculations beyond a simple coordinate system. It should have density just like a magnetic field, so in places where there's lots of gravity, there should also be lots of space. By that logic, the center of galaxies should have very dense space (and time). It should appear like stars move much slower than those on the outside of the disc. No dark matter required. (there's a bit in there about correcting the rotation curves by using values of both c and g that comport with the galaxy's size)

But on the other side of that, you can't get something for nothing. If spacetime is something real, just like matter is, it has to be conserved. And if the density of space increases in one region of the causal framework (universe), it must deplete elsewhere, get stretched thin. Very massive, non-local objects would appear to increase in distance, and that distance would increase the farther away it is. Dark energy is revealed in this light as less galaxies moving away and more us moving deeper into our own local gravitational valleys.

Haha, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, Just that my brain kept going "wait...what?" when I tried to read it. I shall give it a better shot when I feel able to cope with complex thought again.

--A

T = M / S
M∞ / Mµ = Mµ / Mobs = Mobs / Matom
(Tµ / Sµ) / Sµ = t
m( Mµ / Mobs ) = π/t = Ho
(Tµ / Sµ) / Tµ = c
Mµ/Mx = Mx * c²
Mµ/Mx = Ex
E = Mc²
G = 1 / Sµ
F = MΔS =M( S/T )

In summation, I propose the following laws of causality:
1. Physical reality is an expression of infinity in physical terms.
2. The primary aspects of causal ordering are time, mass, and space, each of which is a subdivision of the greater frame’s and each of which must be preserved in lesser frames.
3. The product of an object’s space and time is its mass; an object cannot be considered apart from its spacetime except when the frame of examination is similarly collapsed; and an object is indistinguishable from its spacetime if no distinction is made in space or time.
4. The fundamental dimension of space in a causal framework is inner/outer—there or not there, part or not part, one or zero—in combination with the dimension of time, or being.
5. All dimensions or measurements of the infinite—physical or temporal or otherwise—are subdivisions of the causal framework’s, i.e., the universe’s., with each valid in their own context, each the greater framework of the elements that that framework could in turn be subdivided, and the entirety of which is bounded by the observer or measurement and can be determined in terms of the observer or measurement.
6. Any expression of the infinite, within a causal framework:
a. must be infinitely divisible;
b. must accurately express at scale all the properties or dimensions of the causal framework from which it was derived within the context of the dimensions derived;
c. must change at a rate that preserves causal order across all causal frames;
d. is the result of the imposition of a boundary on the infinite, and as such:
i. must terminate in infinitely retreating termini and
ii. create or imply infinitely repeating structures of the same ordering.
7. The relationships between dimensions, while potentially infinite, must be preserved across all dimensions, necessitating the lower order conservation of dimensions to preserve the greater order conservation of causality.
8. The conservation of dimensions in combination with the necessary relativity of causal frames results in emergence.
9. Spacetime is the product of an object’s space and time which is in turn equivalent to the object only in those terms. Mass is neither space nor time, but mass is spacetime. This spacetime, which both is and is not the commonly conceived concept of spacetime, is:
a. the primary dimension—including but not limited to 3-dimensional space—from which all other dimensions are derived;
b. a universal translator of scale, since scale is spacetime itself; and
c. the causal order of mass.
10. All force derives from time.

So yeah, all the rules and values of the universe derived from only the observer and the relation through time to infinity. Just about the simplest possible extraction of reality in the terms of mathematics. And damn if I don't know the math is right.

If anyone's curious, the pi / t part was the last part I put together. I knew pi fit in there somewhere, knew it was somehow crucial to everything. Once I thought of graphing the curve of the relationship, expressing it as a slope, it just fell out immediately.

I didn't suspect I'll ever know what you're talking about.

It's not as hard as it looks, Fist. *I* wrote it. I can barely do a bit of a calculus. But if I can explain:

The first equation is the really weird part. T = M / S doesn't make sense to us at first, to anyone. Ok, but move the math around, put space and time next to each other. Mass = spacetime. Space *times* time. Ok, well maybe that's not quite making sense, either. We already 'know' that space and time are the same thing, so how does that equal mass? Because think about the relationship of mass and space intrinsically. Mass is where space isn't and vice versa. It is the zero to the 1 of binary logic. So on one hand, you have mass. On the other, the *product* of space and time which equals, is the same as, the mass. You only discern a difference when you discern a difference in either *space* *or time* (and in fact, you can't vary either without varying the other), and that different is expressed as __mass__ in space over the difference of time.

Despite how simple this is, it is obscured from us. We consider ourselves mass, and so we see the universe as mass (divided by space and time). From our perspective, space and time is just the relationship of mass. That is how we have always described it, coordinates or otherwise. But in the bigger equation, they're all the same thing.

So the next line is the relationship of all the stuff. The universe's mass on the scale of the observer is the same relationship as the observer's mass to the scale of its parts (atoms), with that being the same relationship as the universe's mass to infinite mass. Now normally you plug an infinity into an equation, and you have a lot of explaining to do it. It's like saying, "And over here's magic." You can't prove or disprove it.

So what is the slope of that relationship? Like, how would you plot it, so you could at least faithfully point toward infinity? That slope is a function of pi over time (the spacetime of the universe expressed only in the dimension of time). More time, the less the value of pi, and vice versa. This also shows that the computation of pi is actually infinite, btw.

The rest of the equation just shows how Einstein's works in, gives a fundamental constant to the force we call gravity, and show that all forces ultimately derive from time and resolve through time.

So the only critical thought I've received back basically amounted to, "Where's the Fine Structure Constant, crackpot?" Well, if that's what it takes:



"Time, as under the constraint of causality and from the perspective of the observer, which is itself the inverse of all other elements in the set, is equal to Mass of the division of order as experienced by the observer over the minimal geometry of space as experienced by the observer."

Somebody needed you to state that?? That's a given!

Heh. The funny thing is, it kinda is. In a way, it's the most simple fact about existence there is. It's been staring us in the face the whole time, but we've just been working backwards to it.