Interface between Space and Mass


Counting is an idea of sequence in which we assume numbers of increasing value to occur at equal intervals.

A scale represents gradient values of some characteristic.

The gradient values seem to extend in one direction to infinity and in the other direction to nothing.

“Infinity” is infinitely growing. “Nothing” is infinitely diminishing. We can neither define infinity nor nothing with absolute certainty.

A scale usually assumes a reference point of “zero” with values increasing in a positive direction and decreasing in the opposite negative direction on the scale. This reference point is usually some easily recognizable point, such as, the sea level. It is arbitrary.

A scale also assumes a unit value for the characteristic being measured as “one”. The unit is some easily recognizable measure, such as, the length of a foot. It is also arbitrary.

There is neither an absolute reference point, nor an absolute unit to measure any characteristic.

The sense of unit comes only through presence of an identifiable boundary that separates mass from surrounding space.

The attention shifts from space to mass at the boundary of the unit. This is the case even with an assumed unit within space. The attention shifts from one kind of supposition to another kind.

The shift, as perceived, is never absolute. Therefore, there must be a gradient of energy from space to mass at the boundary of the unit.

This gradient of energy occurs in terms of its frequency. Space is “zero” frequency. Mass is “infinite” frequency.

There is a steep gradient of energy from zero frequency (awareness as space) to extremely high frequency (awareness as mass) at any separation between space and mass.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • freebeeing  On November 1, 2015 at 2:57 PM

    Is there really any true “separation” between space & mass?


    • vinaire  On November 1, 2015 at 2:59 PM

      That is the question dealt in the post above.


  • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2015 at 8:25 PM

    Here is a good introductory vid that will offer an explanation of the reasoning for extra dimensions. It gives a good perspective on how scientific thought has advanced over the last hundred years.


    • vinaire  On November 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM

      String Theory is all conjecture with no consistency with physical reality.


      • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2015 at 5:30 PM

        V:”…no consistency with physical reality.”

        With your logic, time as a dimension is also inconsistent with physical reality. Can you touch it? No. Can you measure IT? No, just it’s effects. So your idea of time is just as circumstantial as the idea of multiple dimensions.

        I would really encourage you to watch the vid.


        • vinaire  On November 13, 2015 at 8:28 PM

          We ascribe reality to those things that we can experience directly. We assume a continuity or consistency in what we observe. This establishes the logic. When we observe a discontinuity or logical inconsistency we look closely to repair it. It is this continuity or logical consistency that establishes reality.

          Newtonian physics assumes space, time and matter to be absolute in themselves and independent of each other. This introduces discontinuity and unreality. Special theory of relativity establishes continuity between space and time, whereas the General theory of relativity establishes continuity between space-time and gravity (matter). This makes time consistent with physical reality.

          What reasoning (in a nut shell) makes these extra dimensions consistent with reality? Pure mathematical reasoning is not good enough.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM

      @2X, Thanks for sharing this video . . . it is a wonderful synopsis of the search for extra dimensions. Through the past few years, I have been conditioning myself to think in terms of both fractals and exponential notation. Because of that, this talk given by Joanne Hewett about extra dimensions and the Kaluza-Klein particle are very well received. I liked very much her models of “towers of massive particles” and of “spatial membranes.”

      A skill which a mental explorer needs is the ability to think loosely. Not fuzzy but rather practicing clinging lightly to the models of one’s world view. Then a person cannot only discuss and assimilate a new idea but one can also change their mind.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM

    “The gradient values seem to extend in one direction to infinity and in the other direction to nothing.”

    That is a very good way of saying something that can be intuitively hard to grasp. The reason I like it is because it expresses something that is normally thought of in a linear way, in an exponential way. Both exponentially large and exponentially small.

    It seems that time (t) must be something like that.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 20, 2015 at 12:02 PM

    I like the notion of a disturbance theory and of a disturbance scale. What would be the next step to carry it further?


%d bloggers like this: