Before Einstein's strange kinematics of fused and confused dimensional and vectoral analyses,.. the basic view of the universe was simple...
The basic dimensional analysis indicates that space is an infinite expanse - as per the Euclidean linear (1-D lines), plane (2-D areas), and solid (3-D volumes) geometry. And the basic vectoral analysis indicates a kinematic mass-energy cosmos that occupies infinite space - as per the Galilean-Newtonian velocity/motion transformations and the Maxwellian-Lorentzian mass-energy transformations.
The basic analyses indicate that Physics is mainly Kinematics - i.e., the laws of motion and the laws of motion formations and transformations. I understand that this is what Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, and Lorentz, among others, were saying. These classical guys applied the transformation factor primarily to the velocity and mass aspects; so, although not clearly articulated, these guys removed the space variables in the transformation equations and substituted the velocity (e.g., u and u') variables and the mass (e.g., m and m') variables. This is why we have the Galilei velocity transformation u'=u-c and Newton's F=ma that describe force as a kinematic tendency, Maxwell's equations that involves the waves (motions) and the motion tendencies (e.g., the electric and magnetic forces) as per the c=wf, and then Lorentz' motion transformation that has the mass variables substituted into the transformation equation instead of the space variables.
Einstein applied the transformation factor on the space and time aspects. And, although he put forth the E=mc² formula that actually shows that E and m and c are all motion constructs (forms of motion or motion formations, Einstein did not explicitly articulate the idea of the transformation factor being applied to the velocity and mass aspects. So, Einstein did not explicitly articulate the idea of purely the motion transformations embraced by the classical guys.
The classical physics guys apparently thought something occupies space; Maxwell called the space occupant the "ether"; this "ether" idea is apparently simply the idea of the fundamental space-occupant; it is not the "motion" idea; motion formations and transformations are rendered on the ether to give definition for what is called the substance of existence; so the substance of existence is both the "ether" space-occupant and the "motion" formations rendered on the "ether".
Einstein discarded the idea of the space-occupying ether and directly applied the transformation to space itself. But according to common sense, space is a scalar dimension, not a kinematic vector; space is not motion; motion is the kinematic essence, the essence fittingly represented by a vector. Nowadays the confused also say "vector space" - a further stupid confusion. This confusion is analogous to the confusing "time vector" term.
But it is evident that we have the space and time dimensions, which are non-dynamic scalar essences. And we have the motion and duration processes, which are the fundamental currents that "occur" more than just "exist", whereas the space and time dimensions simply exist and do not occur, because the dimensions are not currents and are merely the backgrounds wherein the fundamental currents occur.
Now, something occupies space; we call that something the substance of existence; it is composed of the space-occupying essence called the "ether" and the "motion" that renders the kinematic texture.
The "ether" and "motion" are fundamentals; they are never apart from each other; in other words, there is always the motion on the ether, which allows the idea of motion formations and transformations; such that motion can be spoken as having density - i.e., more motion in a given volume of space than in others. And so, a whole infinite cosmos made out of this kinematic ether-motion substance occupies infinite space. This is what I understand.
The Kinematics indicates that motion is kinetic energy; and by the E=mc² formula, energy has the ponderable mass m=E/c²; so, mass is energy and energy is mass. Since energy is motion, then mass is motion. Evidently, gravitation is motion. Since mass is motion, then gravitation is mass when eventually transformed into the condensed form of motion.
As I have mentioned before in my exchanges here, the condensed particulate mass form is basically a toroidal configuration. And apparently the gauge theories may be applied on the toroidal configurations. There is therefore the question regarding the vectors that are involved in the formation of mass and the sustained reality of the particulate mass formation. According to the genesis formula that I have put forth, the applicable vectors are the infinite gravitational vectors; and these infinite vectors are the revolutions with respect to an infinitely hierarchical kinematic cosmos.
Every particle of mass has a gravitational field around it; by extension the whole universe has a gravitational field around it; and the gravitational field is a never-ending 3-D motion. In my theory, the infinite revolutions with respect to the infinite cosmic hierarchy is the source and origin of the infinite 3-D gravitational vectors; essentially the image is that of every particle moving/accelerating outwards in all directions according to the principle of the relativity of motion, which actually gives a better explanation regarding the principle of equivalence this time in the 3-D tensor view. To me the revolutions defines gravity and is the origin of gravity, plus the fundamental idea of kinematics that says "motions move motions, motions cling to motions."
The "revolutions" are somewhat like the "branes" put forth in string theory. But compared to string theory, my idea of motion being the fundamental is more fundamental than the idea of wiggly strings; whereas the fundamental motion idea can be represented simply using a single vector, strings need a lot more motion vectors to describe their wiggly vibrations. So, my idea of motion as that which define substance is more fundamental. So, to me, M-theory is MOTION-theory. (I am putting this paragraph here just to indicate that all the physics theories (which have equations of motion) can be explained in terms of the idea of "motion formations and motion transformations" that I put forth.
Physics is about the motion formations and motion transformations. The phenomena in nature is fundamentally "motion."
I am a bit encouraged to speak more plainly and boldly now because I heard/saw "Closer to Truth" Robert L Kuhn (who is involved in FQXi) say "perhaps it is all about motion transformations" or something like that. I can't remember which episode. But as I remember it, it kinda made me think that the intellectual establishment is warming up to my theory of motion transformations.
My theory clearly contradicts Einstein's theory of space-time transformations. Einstein's idea of space-time transformations is baloney. It is time we reevaluate our scientific view.
We need to distinguish between the idea of the static scalar dimensions and the idea of the dynamic motion/duration vectors. The dimensional analysis and vectoral analysis in our physics should be clearly distinguished in order to clarify the entire picture of the synthesis of the existence.
If we continue in our fused and confused dimensional and vectoral analysis based on Einstein's convoluted and senseless idea of arbitrary space-time transformations, we will continue with the stupidly confused picture regarding the existence.
Kuhn's Closer to Truth program is remarkable. But we need to get to and be on the truth, not just closer. I think my idea of motion formations and transformations is the key in getting to the truth.
And I hope the FQXi guys and their associates will begin the serious investigations of the idea of motion transformations, because it explains, in the most logical and rational and comprehensible and sensible manner, the nature and even the purpose of the entire existence.
We should at least clarify the pure kinematics view of motion formations and motion transformations in contrast to the strange kinematics view of arbitrary space-time transformations...
(My submitted essay composition is in my estimation not well-developed. I had only 48 hours to write it before deadline. I even forgot to number the pages... But the essay should be easy to understand if you are a bit more forgiving...)
