Inertialess Universe

[Atlan0001]

Can you imagine (picture in your mind's eye) the Universe (U) being inertialess (having to it an inertialess bent)?

 

[Catastrophe]

No, because there is nothing outside the Universe in which it could travel.
The Universe cannot move anywhere.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

"Nothing outside" (nothing distantly outside -- or distantly within -- the 'local', aka nothing distantly outside -- or distantly within -- the 'relative'). Nothing non-local / non-relative there, then. No 'where' outside / within (no such thing as non-local / non-relative). No 'when' outside / within (no such thing as non-local / non-relative). No such thing as a state of boundarylessness. No such thing as a state of outland frontier. Gk. Ou topos -- no place: So, Utopia (Nowhereland); so, Dystopia (Reality).

 

[Catastrophe]

"Nothing outside" (nothing distantly outside -- or distantly within -- the 'local', aka nothing distantly outside -- or distantly within -- the 'relative'). Nothing non-local / non-relative there, then. No where outside / within (no such thing as non-local / non-relative). No when outside / within (no such thing as non-local / non-relative). No state of boundarylessness. No frontier state. Gk. Ou topos -- no place: Utopia (Nowhereland)... so, Dystopia.

"The Universe cannot move anywhere."
Is that a 'yes'? Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Infinite mass in Big Crunch (Big Vortex) Universe: Movement (energetic). Infinite of its binary other self / being, Big Hole (Big Vortex): Movement (energetic). Constant of Big Bang / Planck collapsed horizon: Movement (energetic). Velocities within infinite numbers (levels) (depths) of planes of velocity ('c' the singularly whole flat "Plane" (P) (the collapsed horizon)): Movement (energetic). Infinity of local, relative, [finite] (point infinitesimal) bubble universes: Movement (energetic). Matter: Movement (energetic). Energy: Movement (energetic). Vortex Universe (irresistible force) / "Grand Central Station" Universe (immovable object): Binary Problematic (0 and/or 1) "naked singularity".

The Universe [moves] just about everywhere.

 

[Atlan0001]

How might the Universe be inertialess? It might be if [reverse time flow] does exist as I've read before that some QM physicists think they have noticed it to exist in that realm. And I said it in passing so often in calling the BC / BB / Planck "constants". I've argued for it hard without ever quite realizing what I was really arguing for, until I happened, just happened, to mention a possibility of how it might operate in my thread "Planes of Space and Time.... and Velocity". Time itself having "correlative" dimensions.

Some time ago I put the ultimate flow [point] of reversal inside the event horizons of blackholes to a "naked singularity" of a constant of Big Crunch / Big Hole (Vortex (expanding to, and closing to, rim horizon)), and at the bottom of all wells of gravity regardless of shallow or deep. In other words as ultimate factors of gravity itself. Then I almost forgot this part of my mind's eye modeling. To bring it back is like a confirmation of it and the rest of that modeling.

Then, in the particular thread mentioned, I claimed no light from the direction of the Big Bang ever passes any 0-point here and now. Meaning that it never goes by 0-point on to points in space and time 14.1blyrs, 14.2blyrs, 15blyrs, and so on from that horizon.... in space or in time. But, I said that light coming to us from such as Andromeda would pass us by though ever continuing to fall rearward in time (-) the more it traveled forward in space (+). ((-) (+) = 0 (0-point))

I also claimed that by the time it reached a certain forward point in its travel through space it would reach the Big Bang collapsed horizon point in its travel rearward in time. The accumulating collection of light and time would so bury it as to collapse in horizon. The result would be the collapsed horizon of the Big Bang. It, light's travel, would fall back in time's dimensionality to that point in time, which would also be (at one and the same time and place) the collapsed horizon of the Planck condition.

So there is a physicality to time reversal. The QM physicists that noted such are exactly right in that. Toward the Planck collapse in horizon is not only distance down and in in space and contraction but is also time reversal (-). Toward the Big Bang collapse in horizon, then, it would also be a physicality of time reversal [flow] (-). Just as from both to any here and now [local finite] relativity is time forward (+). ((-) (+) = 0 (0-point))

Stephen Hawking joked (maybe joked) that to escape the end of your local universe simply travel in any direction out toward that collapsed horizon of the infinite (he didn't say "infinite"; that part is mine) out and away from your local here and now. I understand now he was, in fact, serious (just in joking fashion). Thus the ultimate future, the ultimate time forward, of a local relative universe is to blackhole. But barring leaping into a blackhole, our own travel can only be 0-point to 0-point of an infinity of 0-point graduatingly offsetting [bubble] universes, losing and gaining local relativity as we go.... and only keeping constancy to that closed up and collapsed horizon (Big Bang / Planck / 'c' / ? ) of the infinite.

 

[Catastrophe]

inertia

Noun

1. 1.
   a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.
   "the bureaucratic inertia of the various tiers of government
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   PHYSICS
   a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is ch anged by an external force.
   "the power required to overcome friction and the inertia of the moving parts"

Then "inertialess" must mean "not changed by an external force", but there is no "external"

OK, one can pick away at the definition a little . . . . . . . . .

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

inertia

Noun

1. 1.
   a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.
   "the bureaucratic inertia of the various tiers of government
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   PHYSICS
   a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is ch anged by an external force.
   "the power required to overcome friction and the inertia of the moving parts"

Then "inertialess" must mean "not changed by an external force", but there is no "external"

OK, one can pick away at the definition a little . . . . . . . . .

Cat

External -- antonym: Internal (no external, no internal)
Outside -- antonym: Inside (no outside, no inside)
Open -- antonym: closed

Just a little?

 

[Catastrophe]

A little futile picking does not change the outcome.

'Then "inertialess" must mean "not changed by an external force", but there is no "external"'

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

I really liked Stephen Hawking. His logic somewhat paralleled my own.

The system -- the Universe (U) -- is infinitely closed (wide shut). Therefore, the system -- the Universe (U) -- is infinitely open (wide open). Binary (1 and/or 0) "naked singularity" (the Big Vortex).

The Large Hadron Collider is a closed environment, its drive, its particle accelerator, an 'external force'. No particle externally driven can ever reach the speed of light. It's naturally leashed, it has a natural brake on it. No engine internally can ever develop so-called "light speed" within its confines.

But an engine under constant power (constant self-propulsion) could possibly power a space ship at constant acceleration without any limiting factor, excepting possibly the environment it may be traveling through at the time. Its drive, as 'position', would never know the ship's 'velocity' through the medium of space (the principle of uncertainty would apply).

Interplanetary space is enormously flatter in plane (straighter in lines) than Earthly space -- for any self-propelled conveyance under constant powering (constant acceleration). Interstellar space enormously flatter in plane (straighter in lines) than interplanetary space -- for any self-propelled conveyance under constant powering (constant acceleration). And intergalactic space enormously flatter in plane (straighter in lines) than interstellar space -- for any self-propelled conveyance under constant powering (constant acceleration). And getting from one plane to the other most swiftly must take the form always illustrated of a jet shooting out from a blackhole. In other words, any self-propelled conveyance under constant powering (constant acceleration) taking lines perpendicular to those planes, or pretty much perpendicular (thus essentially creating its own wormhole effect plane to plane, to plane).

Even getting from place to place within interplanetary space, once constant powering is developed, may require first leaving interplanetary space -- to near interstellar space -- and returning to it elsewhere, popping out and popping back in, curving out and curving back in. The same for interstellar space. And the same for intergalactic space. And so on if there is any "and so on."

-------------------

I don't see that those UFO's being talked about so much in the news these days traveling through our space, popping in and popping out, going in one direction and then seemingly instantly changing to another, seemingly able to traverse any environment swiftly, then disappearing altogether, are doing such impossible things as are being described, and tracked, as being virtually impossible. Such actions happen, at least, all the time in the realm of the small (QM). If space and time are not quite what we think they are, then those vessels, those travelers, if they are real (if they are really here rather than elsewhere and only mirage real here), aren't doing anything quite as impossible as they are being observed to be doing. It would seem that we are just way behind the times, at the Jules Verne stage of understanding, with quite a way to go to catch up, in our knowledge of real space and time, as well as our quality of "space" transportation. Those UFO's easily fit into an inertialess Universe. They fit at least one description of inertialess. I'm reasonably certain my dimensional description fits just as well.

 

[Atlan0001]

I suppose I will play my hold card here. The antonym of 'energy' is 'inertia'. 'Inertialess' Universe equals 'energetic' Universe in the extreme, The possibility rather: Superconductive; hyper-superconductive; hyper-spatial; hyper-dimensional.

As to inertialess travel, it is self-propulsion being able to manipulate environment; the environment of vacuum "bubbles" of FOUR-dimensional bubble universes. Not an utterly resistant ONE-dimensional space-time, but FOUR-dimensional space-time(s) ("It takes three dimensions to describe a point" -- AE)

Resistance? "He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." Plus: "The universe is wider than our views of it." -- both, Henry David Thoreau. Why the last, so simple and obvious? So simple and obvious?! "It takes three dimensions to describe a point. -- AE" (FOUR-dimensions, actually, inclusive of its own "0-point"). The universe is far wider (and FAR DEEPER) than our views of it.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've gone all this time on the edge of slighting another card I have to play to "Inertialess Universe" possibly more relative to it than any other, more integral, which means the closed up non-local rim gravity of the whole infinity of finite universes... the outside horizon (facing to the inside) of each and every local, relative, universe. The opposed gravity to each and every center of gravity, totaled up in the distant collapsed horizon. The gravity of closed up horizon of the Big Hole (the other 'binary' self of the Big Crunch. The interior horizon of the binary's third dimension of Vortex (V) (and an infinity of vortices (v)). Just in case someone sees an infinite problem here with its being the juxtaposed gravity of the overall forest that contains each and every tree that makes up the forest, it cannot possibly overwhelm the local and pull the trees apart that, again, make up the forest, but it can most certainly exert inertialess influence -- outside or rim influence -- throughout the whole of the infinity of [infinitesimal / finite] [point / bubble] universes (u): As yet another dimension of Universe (U). As yet another dimension of Multiverse (M) mirroring throughout the infinity of local multiverses (m). And, as I see it, also tied in directly to the infinity (in-depth) of conductive to superconductive, to hyper-superconductive (hyper-spatial / hyper-time), planes of velocity (the 'Plane' of velocity).

 

[Catastrophe]

"More integral to it than any other, which is the closed up non-local rim gravity of the whole infinity of finite universes... in outside horizon of each and every local, relative, universe."

Now, where does one start to answer that?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

"More integral to it than any other, which is the closed up non-local rim gravity of the whole infinity of finite universes... in outside horizon of each and every local, relative, universe."

Now, where does one start to answer that?

Cat

Why, Cat, don't you know that gravity is always the good 'dark' force among the forces of physics? The good 'dark' force both [far to the inside] and [far to the outside] of illustrated doughnut rings. The good 'dark' force having by far the farthest reaches: Reaches all the way to infinite, thus, too, all the way from infinite.

But, I see, maybe it does need a little editing (my picture a little touching up).

 

[Atlan0001]

If in implying there is infinity in-depth to planes of velocity in the Plane of velocity, I imply that the bubbles of bubble universes are tractable enough to be contracted upward in plane of velocity, shrinking the universes enough to more easily travel (to even a point of hyper-superconductivity), then I must also be ready to see the opposed, expansion in the bubble(s) regarding decelerating slowing in relative velocity... to the point of planes of velocity that go negative in velocity to the observer apparently motionlessly observing from his chair in his observatory on Earth. Between planes, this is deceleration in velocity, continuing down or in through planes of deceleration in velocity, continuing and accelerating an expansion in the tractable bubble of bubble universes (regarding the object or traveler -- both actually the same). As I see it, there is only one relativity herein really involved, gravity's well. The object or traveler, decelerating, is inbound into some gravity well whether narrowly shallow or widely deep, whether little or great. And if widely deep, the widest deepest greatest of all is the infinite Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum binary 'naked singularity' (the infinite Universe). A hell of an ultimate point to decelerate in velocity to (our locality is there (inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, and even inside our finite local, relative, universe) and doing deceleration in velocity, but is there any way to realize it from here, from the Earth inside the solar system, inside.... ?).

 

[Atlan0001]

The Earth is a spaceship with no engine. No capability of self-propulsion. Particularly no capability of a constancy of self-propulsion (a constancy of acceleration). No capability of contracting space and time dimensions of the bubble universe to the fore of the spaceship in constantly driving the spaceship ahead in acceleration to the fore. Time dimensions traveling: Driving the ship up and forward through time ever faster ahead, while driving the ship down and backward through time ever faster rearward.

There will be nothing so great to travelers, including possibly huge migrations of life, as countering a natural environmental deceleration in velocity (at once an accelerating expansion, inflation, in universe) sinking toward the infinite of the Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum (the infinite of Universe (U)) artificially via a constant of self-propulsion (via a constant of self-acceleration in velocity out and away from that infinite other of Universe (U)). It's own alternate face of the closed up total of gravity of the infinity of infinitesimal point finite universes, the rim gravity of non-locality, otherwise so seemingly minute as to influence, will be an assisting booster on the road, the plane, of hyper-superconductivity. But only open systemically assistant to self-acceleration in velocity. Such travelers do not have to search to find 'wormholes' from departure point to destination, from local four-dimensionality to local four-dimensionality (local universe to local universe), local relativity to local relativity, the Multiverse greases the skids, so to speaks, and allows, as I see it, such continuously self-energetic travelers (such "impossibly traveling UFOs" to some) to roll their own.

 

[Catastrophe]

Inertialess Universe

To me this is an anthropocentric non-starter,

PHYSICS
a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force. (Wiki) My emphasis.


So inertialess (other than SF imagination) should mean without the property of continuing in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless that state is changed by an external force. Since there can be no external state of rest or relative motion, you cannot apply inertia or inertialess to the Universe.

As far as I am concerned, that is EOS.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Inertialess Universe

To me this is an anthropocentric non-starter,

PHYSICS
a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force. (Wiki) My emphasis.


So inertialess (other than SF imagination) should mean without the property of continuing in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless that state is changed by an external force. Since there can be no external state of rest or relative motion, you cannot apply inertia or inertialess to the Universe.

As far as I am concerned, that is EOS.

Cat

Your views (particularly your absolutes) regarding the Universe are not mine.

Mod Edit - Play nice, people.

 

[Wolfshadw]

I think this thread has run it's course. Thanks to all who've participated.

Wolfshadw
Moderator