Universal Motion Theory

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Classical motion,

There is only one thing that does not have motion.

Did you mean "There is not one thing which does not have motion?"
This seems more in line with the rest of your post?

I do not understand your use of the word"choice" in this context, especially:

Choice appears to be a singular entity in this cosmos

Would you explain please?

Cat :)
 
In my model, my discernment, space can not move. Everything else does. Space is an empty area for motion to occur un-impeaded.

I believe in 3 forces. The EM force, gravity force and life force. The life force, whatever it is and for lack of another term, can modulate and reconfigure cosmic(dead matter). This bio-matter can make choices and replicate. And other growth functions. Living molecules. It uses information. And the function of error. A Choice force.

We live within a sea of these bio-physics. And of course believe much of these physics are the same as the cosmos physics.

But they are two separate physics. Information and choice only occur here.

Just a personal supposition.
 
Apr 11, 2025
27
3
35
In my model, my discernment, space can not move. Everything else does. Space is an empty area for motion to occur un-impeaded.

I believe in 3 forces. The EM force, gravity force and life force. The life force, whatever it is and for lack of another term, can modulate and reconfigure cosmic(dead matter). This bio-matter can make choices and replicate. And other growth functions. Living molecules. It uses information. And the function of error. A Choice force.

We live within a sea of these bio-physics. And of course believe much of these physics are the same as the cosmos physics.

But they are two separate physics. Information and choice only occur here.

Just a personal supposition.
This is a fascinating meditation on motion — and I appreciate how you grounded the idea as a fundamental condition of physical existence. Your line, “The dynamic of motion is the dynamic of physical existence,” captures a principle I’m also exploring through the UMT framework.

Like you, UMT posits that all things that exist are in motion — even what appears still is still moving, just within different reference scales. It also frames mass as a form of confined motion, and energy as unconfined or directional motion, much like your distinction.

I was intrigued by your mention of “molecular choice” and the suggestion that only Earth-bound biophysics exhibits this quality. I wonder if this framing could be reinterpreted not as an exception to universal physics, but as an emergent configuration within the universal motion system — not separate from cosmic dynamics, but a patterned concentration of motion-complexity capable of internal referencing. In UMT, that internal referencing — motion reacting to motion within a structure — is a precursor to what we call awareness or “choice.”

That would mean that what we experience as choice may not be foreign to the cosmos, but rather latent in its structure, only realized under rare configurations of complexity and constraint. Bio-physics, in that light, doesn’t divide us from the cosmos — it reflects it inward.

Thank you for your post. Your thoughts echo much of what inspired the UMT model, and I’d be curious to know how this view might align or diverge from your concept of “perpetual motion within a sea of motion."
 
Apr 11, 2025
27
3
35
Big Bang as a Startup Sequence

Additional Insights from the CMB Using Modified Recombination Models
Extended or Delayed Recombination and a Thicker Last-Scattering Surface

Impact on the Visibility Function:
In the UMT scenario, if the cyclic energy (E_cyc) is below the threshold (E_threshold) needed for rapid atomic binding, the effective recombination rate is reduced. This means the free electron fraction, x_e, decreases more slowly, leading to a broader (thicker) surface of last scattering.

Visibility function:
g(z) = [dτ/dz] · exp[-τ(z)]

Here, an extended recombination period (a larger τ or a broader g(z)) would smear out or slightly damp the sharpness of the acoustic peaks in the CMB temperature power spectrum.
Modifications in Acoustic Peak Structures
Peak Positions and Damping Tail:
The acoustic peaks in the CMB are due to oscillations in the photon-baryon plasma. A modified recombination history shifts the "freeze-out" of these oscillations.

Observable effect:
- The positions of the acoustic peaks could shift. - The amplitude of the damping tail (the falloff at smaller angular scales) may be altered.
By comparing these details with high-resolution measurements (e.g., from Planck), one could check for consistency with UMT predictions.
Polarization Signatures
Enhanced Thomson Scattering:
A delayed recombination phase means free electrons persist for a longer time, increasing the amount of Thomson scattering. This modifies the polarization (E-mode) pattern of the CMB.

Observable effect:
- The amplitude and possibly the angular distribution of polarization anisotropies would be affected, offering another signature that can be cross-checked against the temperature data.
Potential Spectral Distortions
Departure from a Perfect Blackbody:
In the standard model, recombination happens quickly enough that the CMB spectrum remains almost a perfect blackbody. However, an extended recombination phase might allow residual free electrons to introduce minor distortions.

Possible distortions include:
- µ-distortions or y-distortions, which are small deviations from the blackbody spectrum.
Detecting even slight spectral distortions would support the idea that the recombination process was modified by insufficient cyclic energy.

Constraining UMT Parameters
The modified recombination model introduces parameters (such as the ratio E_cyc/E_threshold and a sensitivity exponent n in the modulation factor f_cyc) that affect the recombination rate:

R'_rec = f_cyc · R_rec

where f_cyc = min[1, (E_cyc/E_threshold)^n]

By measuring the optical depth τ(z), the width of the last-scattering surface g(z), and the detailed shapes of the temperature and polarization power spectra, these parameters can be statistically constrained.

Summary
In this UMT-based scenario, while sequence and time exist as usual, the early universe did not have sufficient cyclic (rotational) kinetic energy to trigger rapid atomic binding.
This leads to a prolonged or delayed recombination phase, which manifests in the CMB as:
A broader surface of last scattering.
Altered positions and amplitudes of the acoustic peaks.
Modified polarization signals from enhanced Thomson scattering.
Potential small spectral distortions.
Together, these features provide additional channels to test and constrain UMT’s predictions using precise CMB observations.

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

Modified Recombination Models in Universal Motion Theory (UMT

This section outlines a preliminary model of how UMT modifies the standard recombination process of the early universe. In conventional cosmology, recombination occurs as free electrons combine with protons to form neutral hydrogen when the universe cools sufficiently. Under UMT, the cyclic, closed motion—central to the framework—is insufficiently vigorous during the "startup" phase, delaying or modifying the onset of stable atomic formation.

Standard Recombination Background
The standard recombination process is commonly modeled using the Saha equation for equilibrium (or the Peebles equation for non-equilibrium effects). The evolution of the free electron fraction, \( x_e \), with time is approximately given by:

dx_e/dt = -R_{rec} \, x_e^2 + I_{ion} \, (1 - x_e)

where \( R_{rec} \) is the recombination rate and \( I_{ion} \) is the ionization rate.

The UMT Modification Concept
In the UMT “startup” scenario, the cyclic (or rotational) kinetic energy that is critical for robust atomic binding is below the necessary threshold. To incorporate this effect, we introduce a modulating factor, \( f_{cyc} \), which scales the effective recombination rate. We define a modified recombination rate as:

R'_{rec} = f_{cyc} \cdot R_{rec}

Here, \( f_{cyc} \) depends on the ratio of the cyclic energy intensity \( E_{cyc} \) to a threshold value \( E_{threshold} \) required for stable atomic binding. A simple functional form is proposed as:

f_{cyc} = \min\Biggl( 1, \Bigl(\frac{E_{cyc}}{E_{threshold}}\Bigr)^n \Biggr)

where \( n \) is a sensitivity parameter controlling how quickly \( f_{cyc} \) approaches unity as \( E_{cyc} \) increases. When \( E_{cyc} < E_{threshold} \), \( f_{cyc} < 1 \), thus reducing the effective recombination rate and delaying the formation of neutral atoms.

Modified Ionization History
With this modification, the evolution of the free electron fraction becomes:

dx_e/dt = -f_{cyc} \, R_{rec} \, x_e^2 + I_{ion} \, (1 - x_e)

This altered ionization history impacts the optical depth \( \tau(z) \) for Thomson scattering and, consequently, the visibility function \( g(z) \) defined as:

g(z) = \frac{d\tau}{dz} \, \exp\bigl(-\tau(z)\bigr)

A delayed or extended recombination period results in a broader \( g(z) \), which may dampen the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum and alter the observed polarization patterns.

Implications for Observations
Under this UMT modification:
- The recombination epoch may shift to a lower redshift and be drawn out over a longer interval, creating a “thick” surface of last scattering.
- The damping of the acoustic oscillations in the CMB may be enhanced, leading to modifications in the heights and positions of the temperature anisotropy peaks.
- Enhanced Thomson scattering during the prolonged ionized phase could imprint subtle differences on the CMB polarization (specifically in the E-modes).

Next Steps
To test this modified recombination scenario, the following steps are proposed:
- Refine the functional form of \( f_{cyc} \) based on theoretical estimates of \( E_{cyc} \) derived from UMT dynamics.
- Implement the modified recombination equations in a numerical cosmological code to simulate the evolution of \( x_e \), \( \tau(z) \), and \( g(z) \).
- Compare the simulated CMB power spectra (both temperature and polarization) with observational data (e.g., from Planck) to constrain the parameters \( E_{threshold} \) and \( n \).
This approach would help determine whether the UMT “startup” scenario—where insufficient cyclic energy delays atomic binding—provides a viable alternative to the standard recombination model in explaining observed features of the CMB.
 
I believe our intellect gives us probability, randomness and chaos. It’s our way of explaining biophysics results without any true knowledge. Not enough present time data to account for and understand all the decisions(derivatives). That make the final result.

But like I said, this only happens here on earth. Statistics only happens here.

I believe that dead physics is set, firm and always predictable. This is because probability, randomness and chaos is forbidden in this cosmos.

Dead physicality is simple. Only one substance that comes in handed pairs. Just these pairs are needed to explain the periodic table. Nothing else is needed. CERN only produces charge fragments, not derivatives of matter. Electrons and protons are the only matter derivatives there is.

The beauty of this model is explaining the physical dynamic of absorption and emission.
And demonstrating that light is not a wave. Photons are discreet intermittent emissions that have a duty cycle, not a wave frequency.

The redshift we measure is a duty cycle shift. The shift does not come from velocity. The far away galaxies are moving just like our local galaxies. Distance alone can cause this kind of shift. That's why it is omni-directional.

There is no such thing as spacetime and this cosmos is not expanding. Space is an empty square cube.

And the light from every star has a different velocity, we just don’t know how to measure it.

All this without choice, and no information formed or used. All dead matter physics.

I seriously doubt my model has much in common with any modern theory. I stay away from any biophysics.

But thank you kindly for your interest.
 
Apr 11, 2025
27
3
35
Speaking for myself, you have set the bar very high for laymen! I find your input fascinating if AI has helped you to be here.
AI has done some heavy lifting on this. Equations, derivatives, & test scenarios. I continually ask, is there known observational data that breaks UMT. We have yet to find anything that breaks UMT. But we need more. We need to try and break it. I am trying to break it. I need data. We have Observations specifically designed to refute UMT. Please see the falsifiability table:

Appendix: UMT Test Falsifiability Map
| Strategy | Test Description | Type | Refutation Outcome | Interpretation if Refuted

| 1 | Angular Horizon Geometry | Critical | Strong | No deviation implies
motion-compression model is false |

| 2 | Isotropic Rotation Around Horizons | Critical | Strong | No asymmetry; challenges
UMT's directional motion field |

| 3 | Dilation Gradient Outside Horizon | Supportive | Medium | Suggests GRs smooth
dilation holds; UMT curvature needs refinement |

| 4 | Gravitational Decoherence in Vacuum | Critical | Strong | No decoherence;
undermines motion-time influence concept |

| 5 | Temporal Drift in Tethered Rotational Systems | Critical | Strong | No drift indicates isotropic
temporal field; UMT temporal compression unlikely |

| 6 | Microscale Compression Signatures in Particles | Supportive | Low | May indicate threshold
or insensitivity, not falsification |

| 7 | Supernova Shell Deformation | Supportive | Low | Absence of anomaly is
inconclusive; anomaly strengthens case |
 
Apr 11, 2025
27
3
35
Summary: UMT, Black Hole Geometry, and the Test of Bounded Curvature

Intent
This investigation explores whether bounded, non-singular black hole geometries naturally emerge from the mathematical structure of Universal Motion Theory (UMT) — and whether such geometries lead to testable predictions distinct from those of standard General Relativity.
UMT was developed to replace untestable assumptions — such as infinite density, singularities, and unbounded collapse — with a coherent framework grounded in bounded, curved, and relational motion.

Reasoning
In UMT, singularities are prohibited. Infinite curvature and discontinuous motion violate the core principles of the theory.
To remain physically viable under UMT, a black hole must:
Exhibit bounded curvature in all directions
Preserve cyclic internal motion
Avoid collapse to a mathematical point
A toroidal geometry, or a functionally equivalent non-singular configuration, naturally fulfills these requirements.
Such a structure:
Distributes gravitational curvature around a core
Maintains continuous internal motion
Provides a physically consistent alternative to a point singularity
Thus, while UMT does not require black holes to be perfectly toroidal in form, it does require geometries that enable stable, looped, non-singular motion — and these will likely resemble toroidal or layered flow structures in their observational behavior.

Observational Relevance
The shape and internal structure of black holes — especially as revealed by observations like those from the ngEHT, VLBI, or gravitational wave observatories — offer a powerful test of UMT.

If observational data consistently aligns with:
Perfectly spherical symmetry
Infall to a central singular point
Gravitational fields with no curvature redistribution or internal continuity
...then UMT faces a serious challenge.

However, if observations suggest:
Asymmetric lensing or shadow shapes
Jet emergence offset from geometric centers
Evidence of internal flow curvature or vertical motion components
Extended post-merger gravitational wave signatures
...then UMT remains viable — and may in fact offer stronger explanatory power in these high-curvature regimes.

Conclusion
UMT predicts that black holes will exhibit bounded, non-singular internal motion, likely resulting in toroidal or quasi-toroidal geometries that differ meaningfully from singular GR solutions.

This prediction is testable, and it carries clear consequences:
If no such features are ever observed — and black holes are shown to behave as pure singularities with no internal curvature continuity — then UMT must be reconsidered.
But if such features do appear, UMT may offer a coherent, non-infinite framework for interpreting some of the most extreme objects in the universe.
 
Jan 2, 2024
1,022
168
1,360

In Short:​

Timeless Material does not redefine UMT—it sharpens it.
UMT remains testable without it, but its inclusion helps refine measurements and enhances explanatory power.
I have scanned your discussion with the AI. I also found a discussion with AI (CoPilot in my case) helpful, but overly polite (the public version). The similarity of response with Chatgpt) is quite apparent.
The polite response generally leads to a positive feeling that you are talking sense. It massages your ideas into conformity with reality (consensus from 'known' facts) as best it can. I found the ensuing dialogue to be useful, but it needs caution.

As per the discussed theme, time and motion are intimately related, is self-evident. The issue is how motion gives rise to time. The discussion of dilation and the effect of time and motion is just AI massage.

Your statement that time is not a dimension is interesting (and I agree with). If not a dimension, then perhaps a process existing within 4 spatial dimensions. A 'Process' implies motion. If you dropped that into an AI discussion it would be interesting to see where it might lead. I like the flattery AI produces but it needs challenging (it will apologise and accept correction).

I am curious to see if my conclusions (not stated here but in previous posts) will agree with any result from Chatgpt
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts