Does anything so trivial as reality interest you?

A Simple Thought or Two

A glance at fundamental comparative realities, without a math in sight.

 

Galaxies at east and west are each seen to be receding from us at three quarters of the speed of light so that, when they emitted the light that we now see, each was receding from the other at one and a half times the speed of light. No can do, ‘scientists’ with their little arithmetick say? Sorry, it is evident. So how come?

Like this:

Remembering that space is not 'nothing', that without space there is no dimension, that space is therefore a structure, and that the effect of 'matter' is composed of concentrations of this single ingredient of space, it is also reasonable and logical to appreciate that the forces that our temporal senses experience as strongly attractive atomic binding energy, weak atomic repulsion, gravity and galactic repulsion - due to long-range space extension - are all simply the governing harmonics of a single force natural and concomitant to that same structural entity we think of as ‘space’.

Space, extending with distance, carries the galaxies within it, so that light emitted from a distant galaxy, immobile within the receding space at that point, is conducted ('at the speed of light') by the space immobile relevant to its contents at that point and at all the points between there and here even though progressively receding relevant to each other and to 'here'. However, though space extends at a rate relevant to its distance, the wavelength of light apparently does not extend, or does so at a different rate, so that the light in passing here is seen to be 'red-shifted'.

Where the space at the point of the light's emission is receding at the speed of light, the wavelength 'shift' of light passing here will be at null and, where emitted from sources receding at beyond the speed of light, the wave will reverse to become an inverse wave - though this will only be appreciated when light received from the increasingly receding light source then becomes progressively less red-shifted and finally progressively blue-shifted.

As chemical organisms that 'live' and so persist in the observation afforded by the states of our material across distance, we observe now and now and now at different points across space as our chemical material 'processes' or 'is processed' within the expansion of space relevant to other space, our physical senses and mental conclusions in our brief bubble of consciousness thus showing us a Universe both incomplete and in action.

However, in the reality of the complete Universe, 'time' as an entity does not exist except as a aspect of that observation and is, as we see, relative to the rate of that observation. Therefore although Universe is already complete, our senses - as an integral part of the process of this completion - evidence an incomplete Universe in action at a rate which apparently varies with our experience but is fixed relevant to other chemical processes. We call this mental illusion 'time'.

However, it is the result only of our chemical process and in reality timeless Universe is simultaneously both complete and static. The physical realities of past and future, from purported 'big-bang' to possible infinity - though still bounded within its exclusive individuality - exist concurrently, though the chemical mechanism of our memory can be only of our experience of 'yesterday'.

It is also worth mentioning that, as Universe has no option other than to be precisely as it is, it is perfect, even though our experience of such perfection may not always perceive it as being ideal.

As our appreciation is exclusively of observation as 'living' organisms, it is hardly surprising if we have difficulty in appreciating these realities. However, neither our inability nor our jarring opinions, indifferent of right or wrong, can influence them in any way, as we and they are an integral formative part of the same completed reality.

This explanation shows us how simple the underlying reality is: an already complete and perfect Universe composed of a single ingredient, with us and our observation and our bothersome supposition as simply a trivial and insignificant aspect of the process of Universal completion.

Difficult? - Nah! Simple.

In fact, when you come to think about it, absolutely simple: whatever it is, it is; it is what it is and how it is, whether we recognise it or not. Isn't that an absolute reality? Then appreciate it for what it is. Forget the demented apes with their strategic delusions, and their grab and get or fail.

Besides, the actual experience of living within Universe is both interesting and magical, no? Look at the image of the 'Hubble ultradeep' scan of a minuscule portion of Universe, and marvel. What you see is how it is and, whatever it is, so it remains in serene eternal truth as it always has been and always will be, since it ever is. That is the only reality, and who can possibly need anything more? Take comfort in that.

One other minor thought: the perfection of Universe suggests a flaw in the mathematics of anything more complex than its elegant simplicity. We should trust the unadulterated evidence of ineffably sure and simple Universe rather more than we do the tortured mathematicised notions about it of one of its most duplicitous anthropoid inhabitants already so richly proven in error.

Benefits of such arch-deceivers' previous arithmetical endeavours include the fictions of finance and 'value' and their vindictive infliction on the unsuspecting planet, flat earth, 4,000 angels, 'turtles all the way down' and the indivisible atom. Their more recent calculation has brought us the atom bomb, military-industrial corporative mayhem and the carefully-engineered derivatives scam, for which last the graphs must have been ornamentally 'awesome'. No, give us honest Universe every time.

Perhaps present-day cosmologists do not appreciate that space is a structure, a medium that conducts light and that expands with distance. If not, then their mathematical input understandably results in an odd idea of Universe, rather different from the sublimely simple, timeless reality.

But, you protest, if you don't prove it mathematically, even with the invention and insertion of such plausible ‘special provisions’ to provide for apparent anomalies between reality and this or that pet theory, then it doesn't exist? - Sure. Just explain that to the Universe, will you?

 

P.S. For those of you with brains numbed by numbers, deeply under the spell of spelling and convention, locked into the complicated, mathematically-inspired vision of a complex Universe and thus constitutionally unable to stomach sublime simplicity, let's not just trash offhand this result of seventy years of independent impartial observation and study, eh? What say I forgive you your slavish adherence to the intricate arithmetical notions of others and you indulge me my heretical - and oh of course entirely capricious - delusory little foible of a simple, timeless, already-complete perfect Universe composed of just one ingredient. - Done?

P.P.S. Er, . . . but what is space and Universe, you ask? - I’m glad you asked that. Ask yourself, what, for instance, is a grain of sand? Silicon, you offer? No, what is it? Atoms, you say? No, what is it . . . ? And, so, Universe.