Thank you for describing this well, John. It really is a pleasure to read your thinking. You describe it so well.
What I see is that you take the universe as a certain whole and work with it.
I mentioned the nation as an example similar to the universe, and yet no person would declare that the nation is real other than for human beings that invented it. And even then, the nation does not behave like a single entity, for the laws of the land are complex, are not always followed by everyone, nor do they apply to everything there is in life.
I don't see the universe as a whole, so the Omega = 1 and tying it to gravity is not my cup of tea (though I like that the flat space is the outcome, as it should be).
It reads that when we look at the price of land and declare it as 1, then inflation over the years making the land more expensive kept the price of land in reality at a flat rate. Of course, the land is always the land and the price is just inside human minds and human societies.
The calculation ends exactly where it should be because it was not based on the land at all. It was only based on the value given to it by humans.
When we look at the motions Earth is involved in then there are three that are gravity based and there is one that is not gravity based.
* Earth's gravity and spin
* Solar System's gravity and Earth's revolution
* Milky Way's gravity and Earth's dancing along in the circular movement
* Milky Way's motion, speeding away from where matter originated and Earth tagging along.
This fourth motion is the fastest speed the Milky Way and Earth is involved in.
That motion is not based on gravity. That motion is the original motion from the materialization process and following the laws of Physics there has not been anything that slowed it down (perhaps drag may have played a role at some point, but we can consider that either negligible or as moving toward a balanced speed in the long run).
As such, John, I see many physicists saying something that they should not be saying. They do not have evidence that gravity is a universal phenomenon, and I have heard enough times by a few others that gravity is weaker than that.
When matter is collectively catapulted in one direction (I am thinking matter the size of the Milky Way), plus going at its fastest pace in that direction, then we can expect gravity to hold the bunch together even though there should be the most minute of arch away from one another over the billions of years. Gravity prevents the further falling apart of this cluster. But it does not require all that much gravity to keep things together.
So, we have two kinds of motions: the original motion from the catapulting action, plus the gravitational swirling and keeping together we also see among matter.
But let's bring this back to your writing because you do not see space as space like I do.
There is no evidence about the beginning of space, of time, or of energy, so I can for the life of me not throw all in one bag together with matter and say "Look here, everything is one."
For space this means that I have to regard it as a phenomenon and not as a something. Space is real, but by itself not a scientific object.
Time, too, is real but a phenomenon. We need something else before time can be of value. Time expresses, for instance, the movement or change of matter. Time by itself? Ain’t nothing there.
1 + 1 = 2
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
The first equation is a phenomenon. It is real but there is no contents.
The second equation involves actual things. The apples follow the equation, showing that the equation is indeed of a certain truth, but we need the apples to have anything actual pronounced.
1 apple + 1 orange = 2 pieces of fruit
This is what I see many people do, you included. You whitewash the actual items and turn them into two entities of the same kind. There is nothing wrong with that at all. All should feel free to do that.
Yet at the largest of levels, we have to go back to the actual items and stop using the collective terms and be honest with ourselves that adding up an apple to an orange is not possible (unless...).
That is what I am trying to show you, John. The many things you have very good knowledge about are distinct features in which communalities are visible, but not to the point Gödel is proven wrong.
At the overall and totally highest level of everything we find an Incompleteness. We only need one incompleteness, and everything else can be agreeable.
We cannot take a man, a woman, a child and a senior and turn these vital characteristics of human beings into a single human being with all these characteristics intact. Only at the population level do we find all four at the same time; not at the individual level.
The universe must incorporate that single level of incompleteness. If you do not have that on your brain, now is the time to accept that incompleteness exists at the highest level.
Next, we can look for communalities, but that level must be one level below the universal level, just as Gödel already told us about 100 years ago (and many others in that time period, before that time period, and even in ancient times).
The big enemy of the truth is in the end the monotheistic thought. Yet this needs to be understood well. Spinoza already provided the correct construct about 400 years ago, declaring God real but only at the abstract level.
1 + 1 = 2 is God
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is our reality
Looking forward seeing what you are doing with this input, John.
