The Last Man Who Walked On

the Moon:

Gene Cernan:

“Hey Bob I’m looking at what Jack was

talking about and it’s definitely not a
particle that’s nearby. It is a bright object
and it’s obviously rotating because it’s
flashing its way out in the distance,
certainly rotating in a very rhythmic
fashion because the flashes come around
almost on time. As we look back at the
earth it’s up at about 11 o’clock, about
maybe ten or twelve diame… Earth
diameters. I don’t know whether that does
you any good, but there’s something out
there.”
This entire universe is a carefully designed, carefully architected, mathematical sytem. That is
the high level truth. Reality is the end result. Reality is the outcome. True mathematics is
discovered, tested, and found to predict some aspect of reality. None of that has anything
to do with individuals’ thoughts or opinions. Discovering true mathematics is like looking
into the mind of God. People say what they have seen, other people look and test, and then
through the process of the scientific method something new is learned about the nature of
this universe which we exist in.

The goal appears to be a universe which appears to be very solid, constant, and “real” for
things which exist at larger size scales. However, that is all an illusion. Anyone who studies
the universe understands how not solid and not constant the universe is. For all intents and
purposes the illusion is close to perfect for anyone walking around on planet earth,
assuming that those people do not think too much about the true nature of this universe.

People get the impression that time and space are either constant or consistent. Not even
close. The nature of time and the distance between objects in space changes for every
single object in this universe moving relative to every other object. That fact alone should
tell you that the reality which people experience in this universe has to be a carefully
engineered reality. With everything being relative to everything else, something like this
cannot coexist in any consistent way unless there is something outside this universe which
enforces some kind of consistent rules regarding interactions between all those relative
frames of reference. There is, and those rules are math.

The truth is that math is the real reality. Reality itself is some kind of illusion projected for
every relative frame of reference. That is why the uncertainty principle exists. It is impossible
to precisely nail down anything in this universe, because it is a constructed universe, it is not
an absolute reality. Math is the only thing that is absolute.

It should be an obvious truth for anyone who looks closely enough, however the
implications of what should be obvious are extreme in a way that shocks people so most
people wisely avoid thinking along these lines. What are the implications? First, the universe
would be beyond infinitely complex just looking at what is inside this universe, and it would
not be possible to do anything other than guess about whatever is beyond this universe
creating reality. So, people who like to focus on what is knowable, tend to shy away from
this idea. As logical as the assertion is, they know there isn’t any way to prove it, but even so
that is not a good reason to discard this whole notion. Much more can be learned about
this universe when people are at least willing to consider the true nature of things.
As I see it, the reason why 95 percent of the universe is still a complete mystery is because
people have not even begun to seriously consider the true nature of reality. They assume
that this universe is not intelligently designed, they assume that reality is absolutely real,
they assume atoms are the main components of reality even though they cannot explain
exactly how quarks and gluons emerged during the big bang, and who knows why baryons
even exist if matter and anti-matter are always created in pairs. All of those assumption I just
mentioned are poor misguided assumptions. The true nature of things will not be figured
out until people start considering more complex scenarios.

If the universe is intelligently designed, then every particle that is part of the standard
model, and every atom, would look a whole lot more like an object oriented class instance
with a wide array of interaction methods plugged into a much larger more complex system.
Chances are that is a much more accurate description of reality compared to the overly
simplistic status quo idea: “it all just turned out this way by sheer random luck”. Really?
What forward progress can you make with that random luck theory? Absolutely none, and
so 4 generations have not made any fundamental progress in the field of physics.

What else might there be in this system other than atoms? What exactly are the 3 flavours
of neutrinos, and an as yet undiscovered sterile neutrino? What kind of undiscovered
integration methods exist? What really is the nature of a singularity?

Maybe any singularity in this universe is a similar type of object and that object type is best
described as “pure space time curvature in motion”. There doesn’t have to be anything
inside an event horizon, because no interaction events take place behind an event horizon,
so stop wasting time thinking about that. The notion of infinite density would be an
infinitely stupid way of designing a universe. People inside this universe can drive
themselves crazy thinking like that, but fortunately the creator of this universe didn’t design
things like that. That much should be obvious. Just try doing some math with infinite
density. It isn’t possible to do, so infinite density does not exist.

The event horizon object would have an instance variable called “gravitational field
strength” which determines the diameter of the event horizon, plus spin, and a 3D motion
vector propelling it through the shared space time of this designed universe. Gravity is not
mass, so stop confusing those things. A gravitational field can exist with zero mass. Mass is
energy flowing in loops of curved space time so, gravity and mass are directly related in
some special cases like atoms, but that is just one simplistic case, it is not the general rule,
nor is that the highest truth regarding gravity. Sterile neutrinos could be pure curvatures in
space time that merge with other sterile neutrinos during the big bang and directly create
those large black holes at the centre of galaxies. The whole idea that somehow mass
collapses and forms a singularity might be just plain wrong, or it could be just one special
case with other modes of interaction existing which also create singularities. What evidence
exists? If a super nova explodes revealing a singularity, that singularity might have already
existed inside the core of that star. Make not assumptions. Test everything. If you cannot
directly measure what is inside the core of that star prior to the super Nova, then realize
your assumption is at best a wild ass guess. Go out of your way to enumerate all plausible
alternatives, and pay close attention to those falsifiable ideas especially if you can figure out
a way to use those ideas to build models that work.

Someone needs to build a really good physics AI modelling every physics object as an
object oriented parent class, then instantiate instances of that class when doing research to
better understand this universe. It is time to start thinking outside the box called “universe”.
I don’t see anyone doing this job, but it needs to be done, so I am probably going to have
to fund all that work myself. I am not going to do that work, but I will hire other people and
point them in the right direction. It is extremely complex tedious work that I would not
enjoy doing. I am going to spend most of my time starting a classic rock remix band.

Certainty is a fool’s position. Man does not possess a universal intelligence, therefore any
claim of a universal truth is to claim, as a truth or a certainty, that which is not known.

As a child knows, with certainty, his parents to be omnipotent and omniscient; Man is that
child.