# Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Part 2)

Mass and Mind: Why Mass Does Not Exist – It Is an Energy Relationship and a Dimensionless Number

Georgi Stankov, March 14, 2017

www.stankovuniversallaw.com

Mass does not exist – it is an abstract term of our consciousness (object of thought) that is defined within mathematics. The origin of this term is energy (space-time).

Mass is a comparison of the space-time (energy) of any particular system Ex to the space-time of a reference system Er (e.g. 1 kg) that is performed under equal conditions (principle of circular argument): m = Ex / E= SP(A), when g = constant, which is the case most of the time on this planet at the same altitude. When this comparison is done for gravitation, it is called “weighing”. The ratio that is built is a static relationship that does not consider energy exchange, although it is obtained from an energy interaction such as weighing. This explains the traditional presentation of mass as a scalar (for more information on scalars see here).

We can call the space-time of a reference system “1 kg“ or “1 space-time“ without changing anything in physics. In the new Axiomatics we ascribe mass for didactic purposes to the new term “structural complexityKs . When f = 1,

m = Ks = SP(A)[2d-space] = SP(A).

In this case [2d-space] = SP(A) = 1 is regarded as a spaceless “centre of mass“ within geometry, which is a pure abstraction of the human mind as all real objects have a volume (3d-space) and therefore cannot be spaceless.

The definition of mass in classical mechanics is as follows:

Mass is an intrinsic property of an object that measures its resistance to acceleration.“ (1)

The word “resistance“ is a circumlocution of reciprocity: m ≈ 1/a. This definition creates a vicious circle with the definition of force in Newton’s second law:

A force is an influence on an object that causes the object to change its velocity, that is, to accelerate“: F ≈ a. (2)

From this circular definition, we obtain for mass m ≈ 1/F. If we consider the number “1“ as a unit of force, Fr = 1 (reference force), we get for the mass m = Fr /F. This is the vested definition of mass as a relationship of forces. As force is an abstract U-subset of energy F = E/s = E, when s = 1 unit, e.g. 1 m, we obtain for mass a relationship of two energies:

m = Er /E = SP(A).

We conclude:

The physical quantity mass is, per definition and method of measurement, a relationship of two energies. The gravitational energy relationship is with 1 kg which is the SI reference system with respect to earth’s gravitation that can be replaced by any other reference system. The definition of mass is equivalent to the definition of absolute time f = 1/t = E/EA  = SP(A). In fact, it is a dimensionless number as is the case with all physical quantities according to their method of definition and measurement within the SI system which is mathematics (see also here).

The definition of mass follows the principle of circular argument. If we rearrange m = 1/a to ma = 1 = F = E = reference space-time (Newton’s second law), we obtain the principle of last equivalence. This elaboration of the definition of mass proves again that mathematics is the only method of definition and measurement of physical quantities.

This knowledge is basic for an understanding of various mass measurements in physics that have produced a number of fundamental natural constants. I have derived some of these constants by applying the Universal Equation as can be seen at one glance on Table 1. The definition of relativistic mass follows the same pattern. I have discussed this quantity extensively in conjunction with the traditional concept of space-time in the theory of relativity (see chapter 8.3 & equation (43) in Volume II).

The equivalence between the method of definition of physical quantities and the method of their measurement, being mathematics in both cases, can be illustrated by the measurement of weight F = E (s = 1). The measurement of weight is an assessment of gravitation as a particular energy exchange. The instruments of measurement are scales. With scales we weigh equivalent weights  Fr = Fx  at equilibrium; as s = 1 = constant, hence Er = Ex . This is Newton’s third law expressed as an energy law according to the axiom of conservation of action potentials (see Axiomatics).

The equilibrium of weights may be a direct comparison of two gravitational interactions with the earth, or it may be mediated through spring (elastic) forces. As all systems of space-time are U-subsets, the kind of interim force is of no importance: any particular energy exchange, such as gravitation, can be reduced to an interaction between two interacting entities (axiom of reducibility). I have reduced the entire philosophy behind the current definitions of physical laws in physics to three fundamental axioms in terms of epistemology, i.e., in terms of human cognition and with respect to the Universal Law. For further information read the new Axiomatics.

Let us now consider the simplest case when the beam of the scales is at balance. In this case, we compare the energy Er (reference weight) and Ex (object to be weighed), as they undergo equivalent gravitational interactions with the earth (equal attraction). The equivalence of the two attractions is visualized by the balance, e.g. by the horizontal position of the scale beam. This is an application of the principle of circular argumentbuilding of equivalence and comparison, which is by the way a practical application of any mathematical equation.

Please observe that humans only employ mathematics based on mathematical equations and have no functional applied mathematics based on inequalities (≤, ≥). When these symbols are used in physics, they always lead to nonsensical conclusions, which are bluntly wrong. This is very important to know.

All physical experiments assess real space-time interactions according to the principle of circular argument. This also holds for any abstract physical quantity, with which any particular energy interaction is described. All physical quantities in physics are abstract mathematical definitions and have no real existence. There is only energy (energy exchange) in All-That-Is.

Let us now describe both interactions, the reference weight Er and the object to be weighed Ex , with the earth’s gravitation according to the axiom of reducibility. For this purpose, we express the two systems in the new space-time symbolism. The space-time of the earth EE is given as gravitational potential (long-range correlation, LRC):

EE  = LRCG = UG = [2d-space-time]G.

The space-time of the two gravitational objects, Er and Ex, is given as mass (energy relationship):  Er = mr = SP(A)r and Ex = mx = SP(A)x. As the two interactions are equivalent when the scales are at balance, we obtain the Universal Equation for each weighing:

E = ErEG =  ExEG = SP(A)r[2d-space-time]G = SP(A)x[2d-space-time]G

We can now compare the two gravitational interactions by building a quotient within mathematics:

K = SP(A) = SP(A)x[2d-space-time]: SP(A)r[2d-space-time]G =

= SP(A)x/SP(A)= mx /mr = (x) kg

We obtain the Universal Law as a rule of three. One can use the same equation to obtain the absolute constants – the coefficients of vertical and horizontal energy exchange – in the new theory of the Universal Law (see Volume II). “Weighing“ is thus based on the equivalence of the earth’s gravitation for each mass measurement, i.e., UG = g = constant. If UG were to change from one measurement to another, we would not be in a position to perform any adequate weighing, precisely, we would not know what the energy relationships (masses) between distinct objects really are.

Any assessment of space-time requires, firstly, the building of equivalences (as mathematical equations) and, secondly, the comparison between two identical entities. “Identical” means that we can only compare physical quantities that are the same in terms of their mathematical definition and method of measurement but have a different value. This is the principle of circular argument as the only operational method of physics and mathematics. One can use the same principle to define a level as an abstract U-subset of space-time, consisting of equivalent systems or action potentials.

The principle of circular argument is the only cognitive principle of human consciousness (3).

Without it, the world would be incomprehensible. The above statement is a tautology – there is no possibility to distinguish between “cognition“ and “consciousness“. Such tautologies reveal the closed character of space-time – the principle of circular argument is the universal operation of the mind with respect to the primary term.

The above equation exemplifies as to how one obtains the “certain event“ which is a statistical term in physics: mr =  m= 1 kg = SP(A) = certain event = 1. If mr = SP(A) ≥ 1, the “1 object“ to be weighed is equivalent to n (kg), that is, 1 = n (n = all numbers of the continuum = ∞). Within mathematical formalism we can define arbitrarily any number of the continuum, which stands for a system of space-time, as the certain event and assign it the number “1“although it may have n elements. This mathematical procedure is fairly common in physics but has not been comprehended by all physicists in terms of philosophy of mathematics as an abstract hermeneutic discipline without any external object.

The SI unit Mole is a Dimensional Number That Pertains to Time f

We can show that the basic quantity “1 mole“ is defined in the same way. Any definition of physical units, e.g. SI units, follows this pattern. The standard energy system of 1 kg contains, for instance, 1000 g, 1 000 000 mg and so on (4). We can build an equivalence between the certain event „1“ and any other number of n, such as 1000 or 1 000 000 by adding voluntary names of units to these numbers, which stand for real space-time systems: e.g. 1 kg = 1000 gram. Thus the primary idea of space-time as conceptual equivalence is introduced in mathematics not through numbers (objects of thought), which are universal abstract signs that can be ascribed to infinite real objects, but through descriptive terms (words), such as “kilogram“, “gram“ and “milligram“. The latter are aggregates (assemblies) of n elements, whereas the elements are also arbitrarily defined within mathematics as identical by the principle of circular argument as to build this set of elements as an abstract system or level of space-time.

Because any discrimination of space-time = All-That-Is takes place first in the mind and is only then projected onto the external world where it can be validated in experiments. This holds true for any abstract physical quantity within the SI system as well as for all elementary particles in quantum mechanics which are first defined within mathematics (see Bohr’s atomic model in Volume II).

In modern esotericism this basic truth is explained in a somewhat simplistic manner by saying that humans are the creators of their reality which is All-That-Is. Every human being creates and inhabits its own universe, but then these same light workers have great difficulties to explain how these subjective realities merge /intercept with each other as to create the consensual reality of the current 3D holographic model. Obviously there is more to that and the explanation can only come from a philosophical disquisition of the foundations of mathematics and physics as this is done in the new Axiomatics and Theory of the Universal Law

Back to the terms in human language that are attributed to numbers when they assess real systems of space-time. These descriptive terms establish the link between hermeneutic mathematics and the real world. Such terms are of precise mathematical character – when we apply the principle of circular argument to the words “kilogram“ and “gram“, we obtain a dimensionless quotient: kilogram/gram = 1000 that belongs to the continuum. From this we conclude that human language can be “mathematized“ when the individual words, respectively their connotations, are axiomatically defined from the primary term by the principle of circular argument.

Instead of the voluntary units, kilogram and gram, we can choose the space-time of the Planck’s constant h as a reference unit of mass and call it the basic photon (see also Table 1):

E = h/c² = mp  = SP(A) = 1

by comparing it with itself. In this case, we follow the pattern of the SI system, which uses photon space-time as a reference system for the basic units of space and time (see Part I).

We conclude:

As mass is a space-time relationship, that is, it only contains space and time, we should also use photon space-time as the initial reference system for the definition of mass and eliminate the present reference system of earth’s gravitation, given as 1 kg. Since these reference systems are transitive, we can compare the space-time of the basic photon h with the space-time of the standard SI system of mass, called 1 kg, and will obtain a different quotient or dimensionless number but the relations between the energies of the systems given as mass will remain the same (the Universal Law as a rule of three).

We can then express the mass of all material systems, for instance, the mass of all elementary particles and macroscopic gravitational objects, in relation to the mass of h in kg and obtain the same mass values as assessed by direct measurements (see Table 1). The reason, why these results agree, is that mathematics is the only method of definition and measurement of mass or any other quantity.

I assume that my readers already grasp from this and my previous publication what a profound revolution this simple suggestion brings about in present-day physics, which until now claims that “photons do not have a mass”. That is why physicists cannot account for more than 90% of the theoretically calculated mass in the universe according to their cosmological models and define it in a rather obscure esoteric manner as “dark matter”. This statement alone has reduced modern cosmology to “fake science”.

Back to mathematics – the mother-father of all science. Mathematics is a transitive axiomatic system due to the closed character of space-time – it works both ways. One can either depart from the definition of mass and then confirm it experimentally in a secondary way or assess mass as a space-time relationship of real systems and then formalize this measurement into a general definition of this quantity. In both cases, the primary event is the mathematical definition according to the principle of circular argument.

When we set E = m= h/c² = 1  and m= (h/c²)×1 kg, the space-time of Planck’s constant h can be chosen as the initial reference system of mass measurement. This is a consequent step based on the knowledge that space-time has only two dimensions, the initial reference frame of which is photon space-time (see Part I) All other units can be derived from these two units.

This interdependence can be easily demonstrated by presenting the Lorentz factor of relativity, assessing the relativistic changes of space and time in electromagnetism and the theory of relativity (Volume II, chapters 8.2 & 8.3), as the universal equation of mass measurement. I will refrain from giving this equation here as not to make this article unduly complicated but you can find it as equation (43) on page 150, Volume II.

Departing from this equation, I have proved (chapter 8.4, Vol. II)  that mass at rest is a synonym of the certain event, while relativistic mass is a synonym of Kolmogoroff’s probability set (0,1). In this way I have accomplished the full integration of all the basic physical disciplines within mathematics which was impossible before that as mathematical theory still suffered under its foundation crisis from the beginning of the 20th century which I finally resolved in 1995.  This must be considered the second most important theoretical achievement on my part in the context of the discovery of the Universal Law, first in biological (organic) matter and then in physical (inorganic) matter.

As we see, physics can be fairly simple in terms of knowledge when the concepts of this discipline are axiomatically arranged. The above equations show that we can present space-time one-, two-, or n-dimensionally without affecting the basic conclusion of our axiomatics:

The only thing we can do in physics is to compare the space-time of one system or a quantity thereof with that of another system.

The practical consequence of this conclusion is the elimination of the SI system as All-That-Is has only two dimensions. From a didactic point of view, this refrain should be as often reiterated as that in Ravel’s Boléro, so that even the most conservatively thinking, recalcitrant physicist will finally grasp it.

Notes:

1. Textbook on Physics, PA Tipler, p.80. (This reference is from an earlier edition of this textbook and the page numbers may have changed in this latest edition.)

2. Textbook on Physics, PA Tipler, p.80.

3. This physical conclusion is of paramount importance for human gnosis and eschatology. These aspects are covered in a separate book on esoteric Gnosis.

4. One dollar as the certain event, 1\$ = SP(A) = 1, is equivalent to 100 cents and 1 million dollars as another certain event, 1 million = SP(A) = 1, is equivalent to 1 000 000 \$: 1 = n = 1 000 000. Mathematics is based on human free will and mathematical free will means the right and ability of human consciousness to assign any number to any system of space-time and vice verse.

This entry was posted in Ascension. Bookmark the permalink.