There is a Key Hidden Underneath the Invisible Rock of Time

Bringing together separate theories of our universe in a simple and cohesive way (the theory of Primary Motion).

(this is an older version of the theory that I’ve left in place as a some what different approach to the same material)

Underneath the invisible rock of time is change.
This is not so hard to see, but what is less obvious is
underneath change... is motion.
The motion that is everywhere, the motion that is in everything.
Motion is a key.

In the Medium article Argument Against Time I give many examples of how time isn't time, it’s motion. If you haven’t read this first, you may want to.
To get to the beginning of the theory, motion must replace time.
However, it may help to know that time can be added back in later, if it’s needed. (Although I don’t see a need for this, myself.)

If we replace time with motion, then one of the things that would change would be the unity that we call space-time, it would become... space-motion, instead.
But most motion is the stuff that’s moving through space, so space-motion doesn’t make much sense without including the stuff.
We need to include mass.
And with this addition comes a simple theory, motion-space-mass are one.

I feel I should include a bit of a warning: the theory of primary motion goes off the beaten path, it is large, it encompasses many other theories and has many ramifications. It may help to remember however, that at its core it is also quite simple.
In the research I have done over the past couple of years, I have yet to find any basic scientific findings that contradict this theory. Quite the opposite, I find more things that fit, more things that make sense.

Fasten your seat belts, please.

Gravity and the expansion of the universe

When I saw how integral motion was to mass and to space, I had to explore. What is the motion of mass? What is the motion of space?

For mass, surely it is the inward pulling motion of gravity. This brought me to the following possibility: what if we were to start with a kind of quantum something, an almost-something/almost-nothing, and contract it with the motion of gravity? Well, it would become condensed, more compact; it would be more like... a particle.
( E = mc2 says that mass is concentrated energy)

What would happen if we did the opposite, expanding the almost-something/almost-nothing? It would become less like a particle, more spacious and perhaps
simply . . . space.
(Science says that the space that we think of as “empty”, actually has energy to it,10−9 joules per cubic meter.) (The energy that mass and space have, points to a likelihood that the “almost-something/almost-nothing” is simply energy.)

Maybe mass and space come from opposite kinds of motion, perhaps they even co-create each other.

If true, then instead of mass “having” gravity, it would be the contracting motion of gravity that creates mass. And it would be the outward motion of expansion that creates space.

I was surprised by what had just dropped into place!
If this were so, then the expansion of the universe would make perfect sense.

Science finds that the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating. Science explains this by proposing that there is dark energy that makes this happen, and that the universe must have started out super tiny and then “banged” its way into being big.
On the other hand, motion-space-mass (MSM) says that space is simply made of expansion. No big bang is needed. And the dark energy is the same energy that is behind all motion (probably relating to the quantum level of things, but I’ll get to that later).

Black holes and relativity

I explored the extreme gravity of black holes from the perspective of MSM. Here it is quickly obvious that the proportions of mass are quite large to a very small amount of space and that motion is so reduced that it does not even allow light to escape.
In this situation, MSM seemed to be in a kind of flux, or imbalance.
Apparently, more mass meant there was less space and less motion.
This was the second surprise… I realized that the theory of relativity was saying much the same thing, except relativity was essentially saying space-time is reduced by mass, while MSM was saying it’s space-motion that gets reduced.

It took a bit for it to dawn on me. Maybe the way motion, space and mass were relating with each other . . . was relativity!
Maybe relativity actually had an effect on more than just space-time (i.e. space-motion).

It became more and more obvious that when any one of the aspects of MSM was greater, the other two aspects were less. And as we will see, it worked this way with each of the three aspects.
More space made for less mass and less motion.
More motion resulted in less mass and less space.
I will go into this further but first I’ll address why MSM might work this way.
One possibility would be if it had a fixed amount of energy, such that when one aspect had more energy, the other two aspects would then get less energy.
What this suggests is that relativity is kind of like a triangular teeter-totter, so it’s more comprehensive while also being simpler.

The edge of space

So does motion-space-mass actually work as a kind of three way reciprocal unit?
What would happen if space was increased instead of mass? Presumably, it would result in less motion and less mass.
The picture I got was the edge of the universe thinning out into space and then even more space, with almost no mass or other motions present — rather like the opposite of a black hole.
And yet, the edge of the universe might also have an event horizon that we couldn’t see past (if the expansion of space accelerated faster than the speed of light). This was intriguing, but it seemed difficult to know if it was true.

Motion imbalance and quantum

And then, what about the third end of the triangular teeter-totter?
What about lots and lots of motion?
Lots of motion should make for less mass and less space.
So, what has a bunch of motion (and a lot of interactions from those motions), very little mass (and little gravity) and very little space (or the tiniest distances).
It was surprising to find that I was describing the quantum level of things.
I had some major doubts about this at first, but the more I looked, the more it fit.

There is a gradation from the Newtonian level down to the smallest quantum level that shows an increase of motion and a decrease mass.
Starting with the molecular level we find constant motion, but the speeds of the vibrations etc. are not very high.
When we drop down to the atomic level there’s more motion and less gravity, especially with electrons (orbiting at 2,200miles /second and faster).
If we go down into the sub-atomic levels we find a lot more motion and much less gravity. Here, we find the protons and neutrons (the nucleus of atoms) which account for most of the mass of the universe. And yet protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons which are moving close to the speed of light (186,000 miles/second) and they add up to only a tiny percentage of the mass (or gravity) that’s in a proton or neutron.

Here’s the kicker, all the particles of the Standard Model (the smallest level) are seen to be moving at the speed of light and to have no mass, except to the extent that they interact with the Higgs Field which slows them down at which point they gain mass.

In other words when we get to the smallest of the small, we also get to the fastest of the fast, and . . . there’s no mass (or gravity) there what so ever.

This is the farthest end of the motion imbalance, and what’s predicted and expected by MSM.
Many physicists are trying to find quantum gravity, whereas MSM is saying there should be little or no gravity in these extreme quantum situations.

MSM also addresses some of the other oddities of the quantum realm:

• Such as how an electron disappears into a cloud of probability. MSM says that this is more motion than mass, that is, mass just barely exists in this cloud. It could also be said that the distinction between mass and space has nearly disappeared.
• Also, “Why do two “entangled” particles interact instantaneously over a distance?” MSM says this is a space problem. Space (distance) just barely exists and is no longer behaving like space.
  From the perspective of a light photon (or any massless particle), it arrives at its destination the same moment that it left it’s starting point, no matter the distance. In other words it experiences no space or “time”.
  From light’s point of view, entanglement is not surprising at all .

Quantum is paradoxical.
As I see it, it’s everything and everywhere but it’s also
right on the verge of being nowhere (no space).
Right on the edge of being nothing (no mass).

Resolving quantum

Seeing the quantum level as a motion imbalance means that the discrepancy of “How can tiny quantum building blocks build an intrinsically different classical/Newtonian physics (macro) universe?” becomes resolvable. Quantum is not a basis, it’s a tangent.
In other words, quantum motion by itself cannot be a building block at all.

Quantum motion needs space and mass to expand it, individuate it and to balance it out.
It takes motion-space-mass balanced together to build a classical/Newtonian universe.

What was becoming more obvious was that when one aspect of MSM goes off on a tangent such as, more mass (black hole) or more space (edge of the universe) or more motion (quantum level), then classical physics stops working well.
However, when MSM is in balance, classical physics works quite well.

Background

I’m not writing this theory in mathematical or physics terms because I did not arrive at it in this way. I’m not a physicist and except for a bit of astrophysics in college long ago, I’m not qualified in this way.
This theory arose partially from a very different exploration.

For years, I’ve been looking at my own thinking process, looking at how our concepts are held, how things get fixed into memory.
What I see is that “things” get held in memory as “things”.
This translation is often fairly accurate. A concept of a tree looks like a tree.
But things that are not things like: space, feelings, happenings, verbs or motions also get conceptualized (held in memory) in a way that is static or stationary so they end up looking more like things or nouns.
We could say that conceptualizing makes a happening, look more rock like.
When we look for “time” we are looking for a noun.
And not so surprisingly, the invisible rock of time isn’t anywhere to be found.
If we look for the verb that our rather fossilized concept of time is based on, we see motion, which is much easier to find.

Relativity question

There is at least one situation where MSM does not just drop into place so easily and this is a spaceship that travels at nearly the speed of light.
Relativity says that this very high speed essentially reduces space-time. (If length contraction and time dilation are seen as one).
MSM says that the speed of light is intense motion which would reduce space and mass.
This brought in a dilemma. Replacing time with motion would mean that the speed of light motion would be reducing... motion! How could this be?

It took a bit to realize that this high speed travel was a single motion,
in a single direction, which was taking away the energy of other motions, reducing all of them including: the expansion of space, the contraction of mass, the motion of clocks, of muons, quantum motions, etc.
That made sense to me, but . . .

Science says, when traveling at very high speeds, “mass and gravity
stay the same” (even as the inertial or relativistic mass increases);
whereas MSM says, “mass and gravity are reduced.”

In my reading and research, I have not been able to find any actual experiments done that specify what the gravity of mass is at very high speeds.

How to test it

As a background, there are clocks that are so extremely accurate, that they can detect a slight difference in clock-time due to relativity, simply by rolling one clock across the floor of a room.
With this kind of accuracy I think there is a way to test the theory of primary motion.
This test would be to measure the gravitational lensing of a planet (or possibly the moon). The lensing is proportional to the amount of mass and gravity of a planet.
The planet’s orbit changes speed as it moves along its elliptical path.
If gravitational mass is in fact reduced at higher speeds, then a planet at higher speeds would have less gravity and less gravitational lensing. Conversely, the same planet at slower speeds would have more gravity and more gravitational lensing.
With sensitive enough instruments the difference should be enough to detect.
So stay tuned.

Does this theory contradict any basic scientific findings?
Does this theory illuminate any other quandaries?
Are you aware of any tests that have been done to clarify what is happening to mass at high speeds?
Would you have an interest in tackling the math and physics related to this? (Or know of anyone who would want to.)
I appreciate what you have to say and a variety of points of view.

For references, please see PrimaryMotion.one
David Coleman PrimaryMotion.one@gmail.com

The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author, S. David Coleman (full name Sanford David Coleman Jr.)