Dear Gerry,
I read your paper and I see that you have found that motion is an important thing to understand when considering the difference between something and nothing. When one looks at the observational information from particle accelerator interactions, it becomes clear that all things that we observe in the universe (field particles, energy photons, and matter particles and all combinations of them are completely composed of simple linear motions that are structured within them in such a way as to give them their observed output results from interactions with other such entities. This means that motion is not something that exists in both something and nothing, but that motion is the something and the lack of motion is the nothing. If you were to somehow stop all motion you would cause all of something to cease to exist and all would be nothing. There, of course, would still be the possibility that the spatial system that contains motions by providing positions for them to exist in and to move in from one position to the next one, etc. would still exist, but we cannot directly observe that except in the form of observing distances between the entities that are composed of motions. With no motions in the spatial system, we could not observe space except as a blackness all around us. Of course, since we are also composed of motions, we would not be here to make any observations. We would also go out of existence and be nothing.
The real basic questions then are:
1. Where did the spatial system come from?
2. Where Did all of the motions come from?
Since the motions are the opposite of the nothing, they could not come from the nothing that does not contain them. They had to have been introduced from some other source. The same thing would apply to the spatial system because the spatial positions that can contain motions have to be something in order for the motions to have their existence in those places and to be able to travel from one space position to the next, which enables motions to function as they do. So, you can see that there are two basic somethings that exist, which are space and motion. Notice that time is not one of them. In your formula, V=S/T, it can be solved for T or time. It then becomes T=S/V. Time is, therefore, only a relationship between S or space (distance) and V or motion, velocity when a certain direction is important or speed when the direction is not needed. In reality each motion contains a certain motion amplitude level or a certain amount of motion. This is why one motion can travel a certain distance while another motion would only travel half that distance. If all motions contained the same quantity of motion, the concept of time would not be necessary because all trips of any given distance would be the same. If someone asked you how long your trip to him was, you could just say ten miles and he would know what you meant because all trips of ten miles would be the same. If space or distance is measured in miles, you could use the amount of motion contained in all motions as the standard velocity or speed of motion. The formula would then become T=S/1 (because there would only be one level of motion and that would be the standard level) or T=S. This would mean that time would equal the distance traveled. Since motion comes in a continuous range of motion amplitudes from zero to at least the speed of light V=S/T formula could be used to compare two motions that have different motion amplitudes with each other. The time parameter is used to compare the motion with another standard motion such as the motion of one revolution or 1/24th of a revolution of the earth on its axis or a specific number of waves of the frequency of oscillation of a specific kind of atom under specific environmental circumstances, etc. Time is not an existent entity such as a separate dimension as many believe, but is just a relationship between motions. We live in a motion continuum. The specific conditions of all the motions in the universe that existed, but no longer exist because some motion(s) have moved to new current position(s) is the past. It no longer exists because at least one or more motions have now moved to different positions in space. You can't go back into the past since those previous motion conditions no longer exist. They have been replaced by the current positions of all motions in the universe. The conditions that all motions in the universe will be in, but have not yet moved into all of those positions is the future, but you can't go into the future because they have not yet moved into those positions. We exist always only in the present. Because that is all that is really there to be in.
Motion does describe the motion of objects, but those objects are all just composed of motions themselves. Motions are the only somethings in existence in the spatial system. Nothing is just the absence of motions.
I used to believe in evolution, but as science advanced it has now gotten to the point that I see that the concept could not adequately explain the existence of all of the species of living creatures let alone the creation and progression of the universe, etc. as some would like to believe. The math just doesn't support it. As an example, we are told that the earth is about four and one half billion years old and that the reason we do not see major evolutionary changes occurring is that they take a long time to occur, so none have occurred in man's short recorded history time. If you set the time per major change to be ten thousand years to make it so that none would have occurred in recorded history and divide the four and a half billion years by ten thousand, you get a total of only four hundred and fifty thousand major changes possible during that time. That is nowhere near the amount of needed major changes that would have needed to occur to start from one single cell living creature and create all of the creatures that exist now and all of those that did exist, but are now extinct. Even the fourteen and one half billion years from the beginning of the universe would only produce one million four hundred fifty thousand changes. That sounds like a lot of changes on the surface, but when you begin to consider the great complexity of living creatures and all of the variables in them in their structures, it still is not nearly enough to produce all living creatures, especially when you consider that at the beginning of the universe and for a long period of time thereafter the environment would not support life. Once conditions were such in some place that would allow life to exist, it would still take a very long time for the first living creature to come in to existence. This means that the time to develop all of the existent and extinct creatures would be much less than the fourteen billion years. If you figured ten billion years for all evolution to occur up to the present, you only get one million major changes that could occur.
The production of the first living creature by chance occurrences is even less likely to work. In every living single cell creature there are protein machines that do various types of work to maintain the cell. It has been estimated that a minimum of two hundred such machines would be necessary for a single cell living creature of any kind. These protein machines are made of chains of amino acids. In living creatures these chains vary from sixty-six to over fourteen hundred amino acids in their chains. To look at how such protein machines could evolve, I looked at a machine with one hundred amino acids in its chain. It turns out that one times ten to the two hundred and twentieth possible different protein machines could be made with a chain length of one hundred amino acids. Any natural random method of production of such protein machines would have to produce at least half of the number of machines possible in order to have any reasonable chance of producing the one that will work in the living cell. This would mean five tenths times ten to the two hundred twentieth machines would need to be produced. It has been estimated that there are only about one times ten to the eightieth matter particles in the universe. Even if each protein machine contained only one matter particle, you could not randomly make enough protein machines to have any real chance to make the one needed to produce the living cell. Of course, each protein machine contains a very large number of matter particles. This is only to get one of the needed two hundred protein machines and near the low end of the chain size range of from sixty-six to fourteen hundred amino acids per machine. It is obvious from this simple calculation that natural random production of the machines would not possibly work. There would need to be an intelligence working by choosing the right amino acid for each position in the chain and to build them into it to make the protein machines.
For these reasons and many others, such as the very complex multilevel hierarchical structure of the universe, starting with very simple structures (linear motions) and combining them together to make more and more complex layers of structures in a similar way to the methods that man uses to build complex structures, which show an intelligence behind its structure, etc.
It took me over twenty-two years of analyzing scientific observational evidence to come to the conclusion, but I finally decided that the universe had to have been created by a very intelligent living being. The math just does not support the natural creation concept.
Concerning the inability to sense an absolute frame of reference, it is necessary to understand that in order to detect such an absolute frame of reference it would be necessary to be able to detect absolute spatial positions. Since all spatial positions except those that contain motions contain nothing and we, therefore, cannot discern such positions from one another when they are adjacent to each other, the only way for us to observe spatial positions is to observe them as the places that contain motions or something. The problem is that all motions continue to change the spatial positions that they are located in. The enclosed path that the energy photon in a matter particle travels in is much larger than a single spatial position and all of the motion flows within a matter particle make it impossible to use it to isolate an absolute spatial position. The same thing applies to an energy photon to a lesser degree due to its angular motion content that effectively makes it larger than a single spatial position. An individual field particle may follow a path through single spatial positions, but man cannot observe a single field particle at this time. The result is that in the absence of a way to identify an individual absolute spatial position in the spatial system, the only thing that can be done is to compare the flow of change of positions that motion entities create as they continue to change their positions in space. This leaves us with working with relative motions instead of absolute motions. In reality all motions move in actual absolute spatial positions, but man's observations can't look at those positions in fine enough detail to discern their absolute positions and there is no nonmoving static object that could be put into an absolute spatial position to mark it if one is determined because everything that exists is composed of motions and is, therefore, moving. If man had the ability to identify an individual spatial position it might be possible to mark it with three circular cyclical motions at ninety degrees to each other that would intersect at that point, but you could not know about absolute spatial directions of alignment of spatial positions without marking several such absolute positions and then there would be many difficulties in attaining that ability. It is not surprising, therefore, that man has not been able to measure absolute motions. This in no way implies that only relative motions exist. It just means that man has not been able to determine a way to connect motions to the absolute background spatial positions that would allow all motions to be compared to each other absolutely.
Sincerely,
Paul
